Case Information

*1

CHARLES N. DRAPER, ..... § Appellant, Pro Se ..... § CAUSE NO. 03-16-00745-CV V. ..... § IN THE THIRD COURT GREG GUERNSEY, ..... § IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF ..... § PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ..... § WATERSHED PROTECTION ..... § REVIEW DEPARTMENT, ..... § AND CITY OF AUSTIN ..... § Appellee. ..... § § §

TRIAL COURT PAST-DUE NOTICE FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCULSION OF LAW, and NOTICE OF APPELLANT'S BRIEF

Appellant, Pro Se:

Charles N. Draper 160 Maeves Way Austin, Texas 78737 Phone: (512) 699-2199 Email: cd@tejasland.com Appellee: Greg Guernsey, in his Capacity Director of Planning and Development, Watershed Protection Review Department, and City of Austin Andralee Cain Lloyd, Law Department, Assistant City Attorney City Hall, 301 West $2^{\text{nd}}$ Street PO Box 1088, Austin TX 78767-1088 Phone: (512) 974-2918 Fax: (512) 974-1311

*2 PAST-DUE NOTICE FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCULSION OF LAW

On November 15th, 2016, appellant notified the District Court of their failure to timely comply with CPRC Rules §297, Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law.

Justice Karin Crump's letter dated October 18th, 2016 response was; "Finding of Facts Conclusion of Law are neither required nor appropriate following summary judgment ruling; therefore, the Court respectfully denies Plaintiff's Request for Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law".

Under TRCP § 299, Refusal of the Court to make a finding of fact requested shall be reviewable on appeal. "Harm to the complaining party is presumed unless the contrary appears in the face of the record when the party makes a proper and timely request for findings, and the trial court fails to comply. Error is harmful if it prevents an appellant from properly presenting a case to the appellant court." Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W. 2d 29, 30 (Tex. 1996)

Past-Due Notice of Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law were filed November 15th, 2016 and recorded with Travis County District Court . A certified copy was sent to Defendants.

JUSTICE CRUMP'S LETTER On October 28th, 2016, Honorable Judge Karin Crump in the 419th District Court issued a letter, denying appellant's request for finding of facts and conclusions of law.

Justice Crump erred and should not have denied appellant's motion as a rule of law. The result of Justice Crump refusal; the Courts forfeits their plenary powers, under TRCP § 329b.

Any order that interferes with or impairs the effectiveness of the relief sought may be granted an appeal, TRAP Rule §24.4. .

*3

NOTICE: APPEALLENT BRIEF

Under TRAP §25.1 §26.1 §32.1, Appellant will submit Appellant's Brief a within 90 days from Notice of Appeal and Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; pending any additional Court ${}^{\text{t}}$ findings of facts or conclusions of law.

CONCLUSION

Charles Draper, appellant, asks the Appellate Court to amend the orders to include permission to appeal the orders. Copies of the orders, and letters are attached as Exhibits.

Notice of Appeal and Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were filed on October 24th, 2016. Under CPRC Rules $\S 297$ , The Court has 40 days from the original request to respond to Plaintiff's Notice of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

PRAYER

For these reasons, Appellant, Charles Draper asks the Court to sign an order granting Charles Draper permission to appeal orders, and letters issued October 18th, 2016 and October 28th, 2016 by Justice Karin Crump and review all pending maters.

Respectfully submitted, Charles N. Draper Appellant 160 Maeves Way Austin, Texas 78737 Phone: 512.699 .2199 Email: cd@tejasland.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 15th, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing; Appellant's Past-Due Notice for Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, and Appellant's Brief was sent by certified mail, return receipt request to Andralee Cain Lloyd, Austin Law Department, City Hall, 301 West $2^{\text{nd}}$ Street. P.O. Box 1088, Austin, Texas 78767-1088 Appellee: Andralee Cain Lloyd, Assistant City Attorney, Law Department, City of Austin City Hall, 301 West $2^{\text{nd}}$ Street P.O. Box 1088

Austin, Texas 78767-1088 (512) 974-2918

*4

*5

Exhibits

*6 VASU BEHARA Staff Attorney (512) 854-9903

JAMIE K. FOLEY Official Reporter (512) 854-9321

JUDGE KARIN CRUMP 250TH DISTRICT COURT HEMAN MARION SWEATT TRAVIS COUNTY COURTHOUSE P. O. BOX 1748

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767 (512) 854-9312 (512) 854-2469 (FAX)

October 28, 2016

Mr. Charles N. Draper 160 Maeves Way Austin, Texas 78737 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: cd@tejasland.com

Ms. Andralee Cain Lloyd Assistant City Attorney City of Austin-Law Department P.O. Box 1088

Austin, Texas 78767-1088 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL andralee.lloyd@austintexas.gov

Re: Cause No. D-1-GN-13-000778; CHARLES N. DRAPER V. GREG GUERNSEY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT WATERSHED PROTECTION REVIEW DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; in the ${419}^{\text{th}}$ District, Travis County, Texas.

Dear Mr. Draper:

I have received Plaintiff's Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relating to the Court's Order Granting Defendants' Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by this Court on October 18, 2016 (the "Order") following a non-evidentiary hearing on October 11, 2016. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are neither required nor appropriate following a summary judgment ruling; therefore, the Court respectfully denies Plaintiff's Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Original: Velva L. Price, District Clerk

*7

| CHARLES N. DRAPER | $\&\text{§}\&\text{§}\&\text{§}\&\text{§}\&\text{§}\&\text{§}\&\text{§}\&\text{§}\&\text{§}\&\text{§}\&\text{§}\&\text{§}\&{419}^{\text{TH}}\text{JUDICIAL DISTRICT}$ | | :--: | :--: | | | | | | | | | |

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On October 11, 2016, the Court considered Defendant's First Amended Traditional and :o-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Evidence. Plaintiff appeared representing himself Pro Se and Defendants appeared through their counsel of record. After reviewing the pleadings on file, Defendants' motions and any responses thereto, the evidence presented, and arguments of the parties, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Evidence should be DENIED and Defendant's First Amended Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Evidence is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' First Amended Traditional and NoEvidence Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff's lawsuit against Defendants is DISMISSED with prejudice to re-filing and all relief requested against Defendants is DENIED.

*8 This Order disposes of all parties and all claims pending before the Court. It is, therefore, a final and appealable judgment.

SIGNED this October $[\begin{array}{c}62016\hfill \end{array}$

*9

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS ${419}^{\text{th}}$ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

| CHARLES N. DRAPER, | § | | :--: | :--: | | Plaintiff, Pro Se | § | | | § | | V. | § CAUSE NO. D-1GN-13-000778 | | | § | | GREG GUERNSEY, | § | | IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF | § | | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT | § | | WATERSHED PROTECTION | § | | REVIEW DEPARTMENT, | § | | AND CITY OF AUSTIN | § | | | § | | Defendants. | § |

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF PAST-DUE FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCULSION OF LAW

Plaintiff, Charles Draper, gives the Court notice that its findings of fact and conclusions of law are past-due and ask the Court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law.

INTRODUCTION

1). Plaintiff, Charles Draper, sued defendants, Greg Guernsey, et al, for fraudulent misrepresentations, violation plaintiff's constitutional-vested-rights, under Texas

Constitution, Article 1, §17 (a), (160), (161), additional torts on March of 2013. 2). The honorable Justice Karin Crump's Court signed attached judgment on October 18th, 2016.

FIRST REQUEST

3). Plaintiff, Charles Draper ask the Court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law and require the court clerk to mail copies to all parties as requested on October 24th, 2016 under

CRCP Rule §297. Filed in The District Court of Travis County, Texas 4). Plaintiff request was past-due 20 days after request was filed, CRCP Rule $\$297$

*10

TRIAL COURT RESPONSE

5). The Honorable Justice Karin Crump's letter on October 18th, 2016 response was; "Finding of Facts Conclusion of Law are neither required nor appropriate following summary judgment ruling; therefore, the Court respectfully denies Plaintiff's Request for Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law". 6). TRCP § 299. Refusal of the Court to make a finding of fact requested shall be reviewable on appeal. "Harm to the complaining party is presumed unless the contrary appears $n$ the face of the record when the party makes a proper and timely request for findings, and the trial court fails to comply. Error is harmful if it prevents an appellant from properly presenting a case to the appellant court." Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W. 2d 29, 30 (Tex. 1996)

Respectfully submitted,

Charles N. Draper 160 Maeves Way Austin, Texas 78737 Phone: 512.699 .2199 Email: cd@tejasland.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 15, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Past-due Notice for Finding of Fact & Conclusions of Law was sent by certified mail, return receipt request to Andralee Cain Lloyd, Austin Law Department, City Hall, 301 West $2^{\text{nd}}$ Street. P.O. Box 1088, Austin, Texas 787671088

Andralee Cain Lloyd, Assistant City Attorney Law Department City of Austin City Hall, 301 West $2^{\text{nd}}$ Street P.O. Box 1088

Austin, Texas 78767-1088 (512) 974-2918

Fax: (512) 974-2918

*11 VASU BEHARA Staff Attorney (512) 854-9903

JAMIE K. FOLEY Official Reporter (512) 854-9321

JUDGE KARIN CRUMP 250TH DISTRICT COURT HEMAN MARION SWEATT TRAVIS COUNTY COURTHOUSE P. O. BOX 1748 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767 (512) 854-9312 (512) 854-2469 (FAX)

October 28, 2016

Mr. Charles N. Draper 160 Maeves Way Austin, Texas 78737 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: cd@tejasland.com

Ms. Andralee Cain Lloyd Assistant City Attorney City of Austin-Law Department P.O. Box 1088

Austin, Texas 78767-1088 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL andralee.lloyd@austintexas.gov

Re: Cause No. D-1-GN-13-000778; CHARLES N. DRAPER V. GREG GUERNSEY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT WATERSHED PROTECTION REVIEW DEPARTMENT, ET AL.; in the ${419}^{\text{th}}$ District, Travis County, Texas.

Dear Mr. Draper:

I have received Plaintiff's Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relating to the Court's Order Granting Defendants' Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by this Court on October 18, 2016 (the "Order") following a non-evidentiary hearing on October 11, 2016. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are neither required nor appropriate following a summary judgment ruling; therefore, the Court respectfully denies Plaintiff's Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Original: Velva L. Price, District Clerk

*12

OCT 18206

NO. D-1-GN-13-000778 CHARLES N. DRAPER Plaintiff, v.

GREG GUERNSEY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT WATERSHED PROTECTION REVIEW DEPARTMENT AND CITY OF AUSTIN, Defendants.

419 ${}^{\text{TH}}$ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On October 11, 2016, the Court considered Defendant's First Amended Traditional and :o-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Evidence. Plaintiff appeared representing himself Pro Se and Defendants appeared through their counsel of record. After reviewing the pleadings on file, Defendants' motions and any responses thereto, the evidence presented, and arguments of the parties, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Evidence should be DENIED and Defendant's First Amended Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Evidence is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' First Amended Traditional and NoEvidence Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff's lawsuit against Defendants is DISMISSED with prejudice to re-filing and all relief requested against Defendants is DENIED.

*13 This Order disposes of all parties and all claims pending before the Court. It is, therefore, a final and appealable judgment.

SIGNED this October $[\begin{array}{c}620\hfill \end{array}$ ,