On September 09, 2013 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
and
for DIVORCE WITH CHILDREN
in the District Court of Tarrant County.
Preview
231-543220-13 FILED
TARRANT COUNTY
7/13/2015 4:45:05 PM
THOMAS A. WILDER
DISTRICT CLERK
CAUSE NO. 231-543220-13
IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
THE MARRIAGE OF §
§
CRUZ MARIELA VILLARREAL §
AND §
JORGE LUIS VILLARREAL § 231ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
AND IN THE INTEREST OF §
CRISTIAN LUIS VILLARREAL AND §
ADRIAN BLAZ VILLARREAL §
CHILDREN § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER AND MOTION FOR JUDGE TO CONFER WITH CHILD
Respondent, JORGE LUIS VILLARREAL, asks the Court to deny Petitioner’s Motion to
Reconsider Final Ruling and Motion for Judge to Confer with Child.
1. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner is CRUZ MARIELA VILLARREAL; Respondent is JORGE LUIS
VILLARREAL.
Petitioner filed for divorce from Respondent.
2. FACTS
Final trial in the instant suit was held on December 12, 2014 and continued on February
5, 2015.
The Court issued a letter ruling on April 13, 2015 that detailed the court’s orders which
were incorporated into a Final Decree of Divorce.
Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider Final Ruling and Motion for Judge to Confer with
Child is without basis and should be dismissed.
VILLARREAL, JORGE/RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER FINAL RULING AND MOTION FOR JUDGE TO CONFER WITH CHILD PAGE 1 OF 4
231-543220-13
3. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
Texas Civil Procedure Rule 270 allows a trial court to permit additional evidence to be
offered at any time, when it clearly appears to be necessary to the due administration of justice.
Rule 270 allows, but does not require, a trial court to permit additional evidence Lopez v. Lopez,
55 S.W.3d 194, 201 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.)
In determining whether to permit additional evidence, a trial court may, consider the
following factors; (1) the moving party's due diligence in obtaining the evidence; (2) the
decisiveness of the proffered evidence; (3) any undue delay the reception of the evidence could
cause; and (4) any injustice the granting of the motion could cause. Eg. Lopez, 55 S.W.3d at 201.
However, these are just factors to be considered. Therefore, if all of the factors are not satisfied,
a trial court's ruling on a party's motion to reopen the evidence should not be disturbed. See In re
H.W., 85 S.W.3d 348, 358 (Tex.App. 2002).
Respondent would show that Petitioner does not offer any new evidence in her Motion to
Reconsider. Petitioner’s motion does not have any legal or factual basis to give rise for the Court
to reconsider its final ruling. Instead, the motion is similar to a complaint of perceived unfairness
by Petitioner. Petitioner does not offer any new evidence to support her requests for
reconsideration. The request for judge to confer with child should have been made prior to the
final ruling. The letter ruling from the district judge clearly states the ruling was made after a
review of the evidence presented. Petitioner had ample opportunity to raise her objections and
make her arguments prior to the final ruling.
4. ATTORNEY’S FEES
It was necessary for Respondent to secure the services of TERRY DAFFRON PORTER,
VILLARREAL, JORGE/RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER FINAL RULING AND MOTION FOR JUDGE TO CONFER WITH CHILD PAGE 2 OF 4
231-543220-13
a licensed attorney, to prepare and prosecute this suit and to defend against Petitioner’s motion.
For services rendered in connection with preparing and filing the instant response, judgment for
attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs through trial and appeal should be granted against Petitioner
and in favor of Respondent for the use and benefit of Respondent’s attorney and be ordered paid
directly to Respondent’s attorney, who may enforce the judgment in the attorney’s own name.
Respondent requests postjudgment interest as allowed by law.
5. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
For these reasons, Respondent asks the Court to deny Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider
Final Ruling and Motion for Judge to Confer with Child.
Respondent request that the Court grant attorney’s fees for the necessity of the
Respondent’s attorney having to file and prosecute this response to Petitioner’s motion.
Respondent reserves the right to make additional arguments at the hearing.
Respondent requests general relief.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
TERRY DAFFRON PORTER
State Bar No. 00790554
LAW OFFICE OF TERRY DAFFRON PORTER, P.C.
Water Gardens Place
100 East 15th Street, Suite 315
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: (817) 763-8385
Facsimile: (817) 348-0770
Communications email: terry@terryporterlaw.com
Service email: porter@terryporterlaw.com
VILLARREAL, JORGE/RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER FINAL RULING AND MOTION FOR JUDGE TO CONFER WITH CHILD PAGE 3 OF 4
231-543220-13
ï‚· Lead Counsel
TULISHA L. BUCHANAN
State Bar No. 00790391
TULISHA L. BUCHANAN, P.C.
Water Gardens Place
100 East 15th Street, Suite 315
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: (817) 763-8385
Facsimile: (817) 348-0770
Communications email: tulishabuchananlaw@gmail.com
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT, JORGE LUIS VILLARREAL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on July 13, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
document has been forwarded to the following counsel of record:
VIA FACSIMILE: 817-417-6363
Laurie D. Robinson
Robinson & Smart, PC
4214 Little Rd., Suite 2000
Arlington, Texas 76016
Telephone: 817-419-0023
______________________________________________
TERRY DAFFRON PORTER
VILLARREAL, JORGE/RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER FINAL RULING AND MOTION FOR JUDGE TO CONFER WITH CHILD PAGE 4 OF 4
Document Filed Date
July 13, 2015
Case Filing Date
September 09, 2013
Category
DIVORCE WITH CHILDREN
Status
FINAL JUDGMENT AFTER NON-JURY TRIAL
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
231-543220-13 FILED TARRANT COUNTY 7/13/2015 4:45:05 PM THOMAS A. WILDER DISTRICT CLERK CAUSE NO. 231-543220-13 IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE MARRIAGE OF § § CRUZ MARIELA VILLARREAL § AND § JORGE LUIS VILLARREAL § 231ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT § AND IN THE INTEREST OF § CRISTIAN LUIS VILLARREAL AND § ADRIAN BLAZ VILLARREAL § CHILDREN § TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND MOTION FOR JUDGE TO CONFER WITH CHILD Respondent, JORGE LUIS VILLARREAL, asks the Court to deny Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider Final Ruling and Motion for Judge to Confer with Child. 1. INTRODUCTION Petitioner is CRUZ MARIELA VILLARREAL; Respondent is JORGE LUIS VILLARREAL. Petitioner filed for divorce from Respondent. 2. FACTS Final trial in the instant suit was held on December 12, 2014 and continued on February 5, 2015. The Court issued a letter ruling on April 13, 2015 that detailed the court’s orders which were incorporated into a Final Decree of Divorce. Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider Final Ruling and Motion for Judge to Confer with Child is without basis and should be dismissed. VILLARREAL, JORGE/RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER FINAL RULING AND MOTION FOR JUDGE TO CONFER WITH CHILD PAGE 1 OF 4 231-543220-13 3. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES Texas Civil Procedure Rule 270 allows a trial court to permit additional evidence to be offered at any time, when it clearly appears to be necessary to the due administration of justice. Rule 270 allows, but does not require, a trial court to permit additional evidence Lopez v. Lopez, 55 S.W.3d 194, 201 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) In determining whether to permit additional evidence, a trial court may, consider the following factors; (1) the moving party's due diligence in obtaining the evidence; (2) the decisiveness of the proffered evidence; (3) any undue delay the reception of the evidence could cause; and (4) any injustice the granting of the motion could cause. Eg. Lopez, 55 S.W.3d at 201. However, these are just factors to be considered. Therefore, if all of the factors are not satisfied, a trial court's ruling on a party's motion to reopen the evidence should not be disturbed. See In re H.W., 85 S.W.3d 348, 358 (Tex.App. 2002). Respondent would show that Petitioner does not offer any new evidence in her Motion to Reconsider. Petitioner’s motion does not have any legal or factual basis to give rise for the Court to reconsider its final ruling. Instead, the motion is similar to a complaint of perceived unfairness by Petitioner. Petitioner does not offer any new evidence to support her requests for reconsideration. The request for judge to confer with child should have been made prior to the final ruling. The letter ruling from the district judge clearly states the ruling was made after a review of the evidence presented. Petitioner had ample opportunity to raise her objections and make her arguments prior to the final ruling. 4. ATTORNEY’S FEES It was necessary for Respondent to secure the services of TERRY DAFFRON PORTER, VILLARREAL, JORGE/RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER FINAL RULING AND MOTION FOR JUDGE TO CONFER WITH CHILD PAGE 2 OF 4 231-543220-13 a licensed attorney, to prepare and prosecute this suit and to defend against Petitioner’s motion. For services rendered in connection with preparing and filing the instant response, judgment for attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs through trial and appeal should be granted against Petitioner and in favor of Respondent for the use and benefit of Respondent’s attorney and be ordered paid directly to Respondent’s attorney, who may enforce the judgment in the attorney’s own name. Respondent requests postjudgment interest as allowed by law. 5. REQUEST FOR RELIEF For these reasons, Respondent asks the Court to deny Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider Final Ruling and Motion for Judge to Confer with Child. Respondent request that the Court grant attorney’s fees for the necessity of the Respondent’s attorney having to file and prosecute this response to Petitioner’s motion. Respondent reserves the right to make additional arguments at the hearing. Respondent requests general relief. Respectfully submitted, By: TERRY DAFFRON PORTER State Bar No. 00790554 LAW OFFICE OF TERRY DAFFRON PORTER, P.C. Water Gardens Place 100 East 15th Street, Suite 315 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Telephone: (817) 763-8385 Facsimile: (817) 348-0770 Communications email: terry@terryporterlaw.com Service email: porter@terryporterlaw.com VILLARREAL, JORGE/RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER FINAL RULING AND MOTION FOR JUDGE TO CONFER WITH CHILD PAGE 3 OF 4 231-543220-13  Lead Counsel TULISHA L. BUCHANAN State Bar No. 00790391 TULISHA L. BUCHANAN, P.C. Water Gardens Place 100 East 15th Street, Suite 315 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Telephone: (817) 763-8385 Facsimile: (817) 348-0770 Communications email: tulishabuchananlaw@gmail.com ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT, JORGE LUIS VILLARREAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 13, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been forwarded to the following counsel of record: VIA FACSIMILE: 817-417-6363 Laurie D. Robinson Robinson & Smart, PC 4214 Little Rd., Suite 2000 Arlington, Texas 76016 Telephone: 817-419-0023 ______________________________________________ TERRY DAFFRON PORTER VILLARREAL, JORGE/RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER FINAL RULING AND MOTION FOR JUDGE TO CONFER WITH CHILD PAGE 4 OF 4