FILED DALLAS COUNTY 2/22/2019 4:01 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK CAROLYN SELLERS NO. DC-18-10455 IN THE DISTRICT TINSTAR TITLE INC. Litigation Support d/b/a TinStar, and Title, COURT Plaintiff, V. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWDOOOWDOOOWD DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON, LLP, Defendant. 44TH DISTRICT COURT DEFENDANT LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SANIPSON, LLP’S FIRST AMENDED PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION TABLE OF CONTENTS II. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .............................................. 3 ............................................................................................................ 3 A. Linebarger. B. The construct for tax delinquency suits. .................................................................. 3 1. Who may take actions in aid 0f tax collection. 2. What must be done to file 3. How funds from delinquent tax collection activities are distributed. ............................................. a tax delinquency lawsuit. ................................... .............. 4 5 5 C. Linebarger’s contract With Dallas County ............................................................... 7 D. The Nail Road I III. litigation. ...................................................................................... 8 E. This litigation ........................................................................................................ 1 1 ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITY ....................................................................... 13 ............................................................................................ 13 A. Sovereign Immunity. B. Actions taken in connection with the collection of taxes are governmental actions C. by definition The “governmental entitled to immunity. ...................................................... 14 function” definitions are dispositive irrespective of Whether a claim sounds in contract 0r tort ....................................................... 16 D. Linebarger is an agent of the taxing units and is entitled t0 governmental immunity. ...................................................................................................... 21 E. Linebarger’s contracts With Dallas County shows that it was scope of its agency for purposes of TinStar’s allegations. F. Dallas county mandates that its vendors utilize directed Linebarger’s actions regarding the acting Within the ................................. 25 M/WBE business and same ............................................. 27 G. Linebarger’s immunity has not been waived .......................................................... 28 H. TinStar’s claims are not ripe and the court does not have jurisdiction over them. IV. ............................................................................................................. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 29 30 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Black v. Baker, 130 Tex. 454 (1938) ........................................................................................................................ 15 Boeing C0. v. Paxton, 466 S.W.3d 831 (TeX. 2015) ............................................................................................................. 7 Brown & Gay Eng’g, Inc. v. Olivares, 461 S.W.3d 117 (TeX. 2015) ..................................................................................................... 23, 24 Bull v. U.S. , 295 U.S. 247 (1935) .......................................................................................................................... 1 Celandese Corp. v. Sahagun, N0. 05-16-00868-CV, 2017 City ofHouston WL 3405 186 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 9, 2017, pet. denied) 23 First City, v. 827 S.W.2d 462 (Tex. App.—H0ust0n City ofHouston ......... [1st Dist] 1992, writ denied) 3, 29 ...........................p assim Williams, v. 353 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 201 1) ........................................................................................................... 29 City ofLancaster v. White Rock Commercial, LLC, No. 05-17-00583-CV, 2018 City ofMerkel v. WL 6716932 (TeX. App.—Da11as Dec. 21, 201 8, no pet.) Homoky, 294 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no City pet. filed) ........................................... 17, 18 pet.) ................................................................. 17, 18 v. ofSan Antonio v. Butler, 131 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, pet. City 0f Westworth Village v. denied) ...................................................... 19 City 0f White Settlement, 558 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018) ...................................................................... Dow Chem. 17 Copeland, 561 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. App.—East1and, Oct. 18, 2018, City ofPlano ............... C0. v. 17, 18 Benton, 357 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. 1962) ........................................................................................................... 21 Engelman Irrigation Dist. v. Shields Bros, Ina, 514 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2017) ........................................................................................................... 13 ii First Bank v. Brumiz‘t, 519 S.W.3d 95 (TeX. 2017) ............................................................................................................. 27 v. Teacher Ret. Sys. 273 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, no Foster , Gamer v. pet.) ................................................................ 24, 25 Fidelity Bank, 244 S.W.3d 855 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, n0 pet.) ....................................................................... 27 Gavenda v. Strata Energy, Ina, 705 S.W.2d 690 (Tex. 1986) ........................................................................................................... 22 GTECH Corp. v. Steele, 549 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. App.—Austin 2018, pet. filed) ....................................................... 23, 24, Guajardo v. Linebarger Goggcm Blair & Sampson, L.L.P., 954321 (Tex. App.—San Antonio April 27, 2005, N0. 04-04-0021 l-CV, 2005 WL pet. denied) ......................................................................................................................................................... Gusma Props., LP. 5 14 v. 25 15 Travelers Lloyds Ins. C0., S.W.3d 3 19, (Tex. App.—H0ust0n [14th Dist] 20 1 6, n0 pet. ................................................ 21 McRaven, 508 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. 2017) ........................................................................................................... 13 Hall v. Hosner v. DeYoung, 1 TeX. 764 (1847) ............................................................................................................................ 13 Iraheta v. Linebarger Goggan Blair 734 Fed. Jenkens Apr. 216 (5th & Gilchrist v. Cir. & Sampson, L.L.P., 2018) ................................................................................................ 16 Riggs, 87 S.W.3d 198 (TeX. App.—Da11as 2002, no pet.) ......................................................................... 21 Lubbock Cnly. Water Control and Improvement Dist. v. Church & Akin, L.L.C., 442 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. 2014) ........................................................................................................... 13 MEN. Water Supply Corp. v. City ofCorsicana, N0. 10-16-00364-CV, 2018 5986953 (TeX. WL Mary E. Bivins Foundation v. v. 14, 201 8, pet. filed) ...... 17, 18 highland Capital Mgmt., 451 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. App.—Da11as 2014, no Nazari App.—Wac0 NOV. pet.) ....................................................................... 22 13, 28 State, 561 S.W.3d 495 (Tex. June 22, 2018) ...................................................................................... iii Planned Parenthood ofHouston and Southwest Texas, Ina, 971 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1998) ........................................................................................................... 30 Patterson v. Ross v. Linebarger, Goggcm, Blair & Sampson, L.L.P., 333 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. App.—H0ust0n [lst Dist] 2010, no S & HMktg. G771, Inc. v. 15, 25 ..................................................................... 14 pet.) ............................................. Sharp, 951 S.W.2d 265 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no writ) Sampson v. Univ. 0fTex., 500 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. 2016) ........................................................................................................... 29 State Bar ofTex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.1994) ............................................................................................................ 29 Tactical Air Defense Servs., Inc. v. Searock, 398 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.) ....................................................................... 21 Bay Cherry Hill, LP. v. City ofFort Worth, 257 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. App.—F0rt Worth 2008, n0 pet.) ............................................................... 17 Tex. Tex. Dep 0fParkS and ’t Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (TeX. 2004) ........................................................................................................... 13 Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm ’n. v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (TeX. 2002) ............................................................................................................. 28 Tex. River Barges v. City 21 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. Tooke v. ofSan Antonio, App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. denied) ........................................................ 18 City ofMexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (TeX. 2006) ..................................................................................................... 14, 28 Triple BB, LLC v. Village ofBriarclifl, N0. 03- 1 7-00 149-CV, 20 1 8 WL 67 1 5272 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 2 1 201 8) ....................... , 17, 18 Vick v. Floresville Independent School District, 505 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. Waco Indep. School Dist. v. denied) .................................................. 15, 20 Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2000) ............................................................................................................. 29 Wakefield v. Ayers, No. 01-14-00648-CV, 2016 WL 4536454 ...................................................................................... iV 21 Wasson Interest, Ltd. v. City ofJacksonville, 559 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2018) ......................................................................................... 16, 17, 18, Wasson Interests, Ltd v. City ofJacksonville, 489 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. 2016) ............................................................................................... 13, Welch v. 14, 20 28 Milton, 185 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied) ................................................................ 23 STATUTES: TEX. CIV. PRAC. TEX. CiV. Prac. TEX. CONST. TEX. Const. & REM. CODE ANN. & Rem. Code § art. 1, § art. § 101.055 101.021 ..................................................................... .......................................................................... 14, 20, 21 14, 17, 20, 29 3 ........................................................................................................................... 3 XI, § 13 ...................................................................................................................... 14 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 6.30 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 11.01 .............................................................................................................. 3 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 23.12 .............................................................................................................. 5 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 32.01 .............................................................................................................. 4 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 33.07 .............................................................................................................. 7 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 33.41 .............................................................................................................. 4 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 33.43 ....................................................................................................... TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 33.48 ......................................................................................................... 6, 7 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 33.49 ............................................................................................................. 5 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 34.01 ............................................................................................................. 5 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 34.02 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 41.66 .......................................................................................................... § 6.30 5, .......................................................................................................... 19 6. ............................................................................................................. Texas Local Government Code Section 271.152 TEXAS PROP. TAX CODE 4, 15 7 5 ............................................................................... 29 .......................................................................................................... 15 V RULES: TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF. TEX.R. CIV. P. 7 CONDUCT 2.01 ................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................ Vi 22, 25 3, 15, 16 PRELMINARY STATEMENT I. “[T]axes are the lifeblood of government, and their prompt and certain availability an imperious need.” Bull v. US, 295 U.S. 247, 259 (1935). For the County of Dallas and other relevant taxing entities, property taxes fund police protection, education, infrastructure support, health, water owners do not pay matter fail, any other and sanitation services, and medical care. their property tax obligations as required the taxing entity may file institutional litigant, the suit to recover the Sometimes, property by law. If efforts t0 settle the government’s property taxes. Like Texas taxing authorities must have an attorney t0 prosecute their rights in court. Linebarger fulfills that Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP (“Linebarger”) is a firm of attorneys that governmental function. Like any other Texas lawyer, the attorneys have fiduciary duties t0 their clients as well as those detailed at Linebarger by the Texas Disciplinary Rules 0f Professional Conduct. In addition to these legal constraints, Linebarger to Dallas County to obtain title abstracting work prior to is obligated filing suit t0 recover delinquent property taxes. Dallas County also mandates that Linebarger “shall” utilize Minority and Women-owned Businesses (“M/WBE’S”) as part of their representation 0f the County. TinStar Title Inc. (“TinStar”), however, sued Linebarger for refusing to submit the affidavits 0f Sandra and that Daus after Linebarger learned that TinStar was n0 longer a Ms. Daus did not do the work she swore alleges Linebarger must pay it court costs to in many on every account M/WBE of her affidavits. TinStar for Which TinStar claims it worked—regardless of how 01d the underlying lawsuits are 0r whether they were successful, nonsuited, 0r sent t0 bankruptcy—despite Ms. Daus’s testimony that Linebarger never did so in the past. A11 of this is pursuant to an alleged “oral contract” that Ms. Daus admits was never formally made. While relevant entitled to for context, the merits are not properly before the Court. Linebarger governmental immunity for its actions acting as the is government in connection With the collection of taxes, one of the types of governmental actions specifically defined by the Texas Tort Claims Act (“TTCA”). This definition supplies immunity Whether the underlying claims sound in tort 0r in contract. Indeed, courts have held they have “no discretion” to consider Whether tax collection activities are “governmental” by immunity. And multiple appellate courts have held to Linebarger and Linebarger is its that governmental and protected immunity applies predecessor firms. indisputably an agent of the taxing entities for the collection of delinquent taxes. It its work in connection With has extra-contractual duties to its clients that arise out 0f the attorney-client relationship that exceed those in the general independent contractor context. For that reason, both the supreme court and multiple appellate courts have applied a different analysis to attorney-agents, because control is a relevant but not conclusive consideration for agency. Moreover, while other courts have found examine Linebarger’s contract County and Dallas County’s establishes immunity in finding it M/WBE policy shows exactly the type 0f control that in even the general contractor context. are explicitly outside the fails essential terms, it unnecessary t0 immune, a review of its contract With Dallas Linebarger’s governmental immunity has not been waived. TinStar also it bounds 0f the waiver to effectuate falls in the waiver—because it is outside the waiver blessed The TTCA. The torts asserted by TinStar “contract” asserted by not written and does not state by the Legislature. its Finally, even if Linebarger were not entitled to immunity from this alleged claims are not ripe. after a final judgment is By TinStar’s TinStar’s suit, admissions, payment to TinStar is not due until entered or court costs are paid by a taxpayer and a case many dismissed. TinStar admits that 0f its alleged claims are of pending lawsuits 0r could be paid out 0f funds received judgments. Because those claims are based on contingent (if still conditional 0n the II. results any) pursuant to existing facts, resolution of them an advisory opinion over Which the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. For independent reason, is would be this should be dismissed. this case FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Linebarger. Linebarger is a law firm Whose practice accounts receivable for governmental clients helps and roads, to fund essential public name a few. Id. 1] 3. dedicated t0 the collection of delinquent including delinquent property taxes. Affidavit entities, of Pamela P. Johnson (“Johnson Aff.”) fl its is 2. Additional revenue recovered by Linebarger for services, Because such as police and fire protection, education, “[a] governmental entity can appear in the courts only by and through an attorney,” Linebarger appears on behalf 0f the taxing authorities and obtains tax warrants, files real estate. City ofHouston v. lawsuits, First City, makes appearances, and The on underlying 827 S.W.2d 462, 481 (Tex. App.—H0uston 1992, writ denied) (citing TeX. R. CiV. P. B. forecloses 7); Johnson Aff. 11 [1“ Dist] 4. construct for tax delinquency suits. Unless exempted by law, each year taxation. TEX. CONST. automatically by law art. 1, § 3; on January all real TEX. PROP. 1 property in the State 0f Texas TAX CODE § 11.01(a). is subject to A tax lien attaches of each year, before taxes are assessed and imposed. TEX. PROP. in TAX CODE § 32.01(a). Generally, tax bills are delivered October 0f each tax year, and the taxpayer pays through January 31 of the following year. unpaid balance accrues On July collection. 1, and interest Johnson Aff. 1] phone 5. If calls, site Visits, letters, if necessary, § 33.41(a) (“a taxing unit may file any Tax Code enforce its and other efforts result authorizes taxing units t0 file a tax lien. Id. 1] 4; TEX. PROP. suit to foreclose the lien securing bot do not TAX payment of the ”). Who may take actions in aid Oftax collection. The Texas Property Tax Code utilize outside it 1, penalties. Id. § 33.01(a). tax, to enforce personal liability for the tax, or First, On February the local tax assessor “turns over” the delinquent accounts to Linebarger for lawsuit to seek collection and, 1. local tax assessor taxes Without penalty or interest Id. §§ 31.01(a), 31.02(a). in the collection 0f the outstanding balance, the CODE its by the expresses legislative intent that taxing authorities may counsel in collecting taxes to allow for more uniformity in collection rates. provides that the “county attorney or, if there is no county attorney, the district attorney shall represent the county to enforce the collection of delinquent taxes if the commissioners court does not contract With a private company as provided by Subsection (c) of this section.” TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § “governing body of a taxing unit 6.30(a). Subsection (c) provides that the may contract With any competent attorney to represent the unit to enforce the collection of delinquent taxes.” Id. § 6.30(c). Notably, both provisions provide verbatim delegations of legislative authority for both government and private attorneys: “to enforce the collection of delinquent taxes.” Other provisions also specifically authorize only the taxing authority or agents to take actions to collect delinquent taxes. Id. § attorneys 0r its 23. 1242(n) (penalties shall enforced by “[t]he collector, the collector’s designated agent, or the county or attorney”); § 33.045(a) (setting for requirements for tax bills sent be district by “a taxing unit or an attorney 0r other agent of a taxing unit”); § 34.01 (“authorized agent or attorney” of taxing unit directs the officer to sell foreclosed property); § 41 .66 designated agent” at hearings). and their agents 2. The statutory can exercise these essential What must be done tofile a (“A taxing unit may appear by scheme thus makes clear that only taxing units duties. tax delinquency lawsuit. Prior to filing a lawsuit, the taxing unit must determine the name, identity, and location of each person or entity that has an interest in the underlying real property. Johnson Aff. 1] These individuals or 6. process that entails, entities are identified among other things, records and other public records. Id. through County and is is work” or “abstracting,” a reviewing the deed records, probate records, court This information must be included in a “petition initiating suit to collect a delinquent property tax.” discussed below, Linebarger “title TEX. PROP. TAX CODE contractually obligated t0 perform this expressly provided the right to subcontract its § 33.43(a)(8). As work for Dallas abstracting work, subject to its obligation t0 ensure the competency of its subcontractors. 3. Howfundsflom delinquent tax collection activities are distributed. Because the taxing entity removed. The taxing entity any is is suing in its courts, certain administrative not required to pay court costs to file fees for service of process or electronic filing.” because, upon recovery, the “taxing unit is TEX. PROP. entitled to recover its burdens are lawsuit, “including TAX CODE (1) all § 33.49(a). That usual court costs, is including the cost of serving process and electronic filing fees [Which are] payable t0 the clerk of the court.” Id. §§ 33.48(a)(1), (d)(1). Included in those costs are “reasonable expenses that are incurred by the taxing unit in determining the name, identity, and location of necessary parties and in procuring necessary legal descriptions of the property 0n Which a delinquent tax paid before tax is due,” otherwise referred to as abstracting or sale, the amounts are payable title work. If the judgment is to the clerk of court out of any judgment. Id. §§ 33.48(a)(4), (d)(1). If, sale however, judgment is entered and unpaid, the sheriff 0f Dallas County conducts a tax and recovers proceeds from a successful bidder. The amount and deposits the remaining balance into the registry of the district clerk. amounts, the district clerk distributes the (1) the costs (2) sheriff retains his or her lawfhl any sale; by the judgment (3) the original court costs (4) the fees proceeds as mandated by Section 34.02: of advertising the tax fees ordered From these to be paid t0 an appointed attorney ad litem; payable to the clerk 0f the court; and commissions payable to the officer conducting the sale; expenses incurred by a taxing unit in determining necessary parties and in procuring necessary legal descriptions of the property if those expenses were awarded to the taxing unit by the judgment under Section 33.48(a)(4); (5) the (6) the taxes, penalties, interest, and attorney’s fees that are due under the judgment; and (7) any other amount awarded to a taxing unit under the judgment. “The amount included under each subdivision of Subsection any 0f the proceeds may be applied t0 the (b) must be fully paid before amount included under a subsequent subdivision.” Id. Thus, Linebarger paid, if at is subdivisions (1) through (5) are approved In either circumstance, abstracting 0r order: (1) awarding recovery; and Texas Property Tax code. in the abstracting Nor is cases work—Linebarger and all, paid.1 Id. §§ 33.48, 34.02. costs title (2) authorizing No court has acts as only after the costs and fees in must be part 0f a judgment or court payment under the requirements outlined ever ordered Linebarger t0 pay TinStar for an attorney for the taxing entities and is not a party. Linebarger authorized to receive court costs or to distribute the proceeds from such and It is for is and has never been, a part of the process not, statutorily delegated to the clerk. those costs of court that TinStar sues Linebarger. C. Linebarger’s contract with Dallas County. Linebarger is contractuallyz obligated t0 Dallas County3 t0 file suit appropn'ate to collect delinquent taxes and all necessary address and title is on its behalf where explicitly delegated the responsibility to obtain research. Id. 1N 3, 4, 6. Dallas County “agree[d] to employ” Linebarger for “the collection of all delinquent taxes, penalty and interest owing to the 1 The and attorney’s under this subdivision include costs added t0 the delinquent amounts t0 “defray the cost of collection,” Which is only paid to Linebarger if it remains after payment of subsections (1) through (5). TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 33.07. 2 “penalties, interest, fees” Linebarger’s contracts with the taxing authorities contain confidential business information including competitive bidding information, the public disclosure of which would harm Linebarger’s business. Linebarger Aff. fl 3. Section 552., 104(a) of the Government Code exempts from public disclosure “information that, if released, would give advantage t0 a competitor 0r bidder.” Boeing Co. separately moved to seal its v. Paxton, 466 contract and refers S.W.3d 83 1, 842 (Tex. 2015). Linebarger has herein to the bates numbers supplied 0n those documents. 3 Dallas County cities is a central taxing authority that collects taxes for Dallas County; multiple including Addison, Richardson, Dallas, and Irving; multiple school districts such as Dallas, Cedar Hill, and Coppell, and at least 45 Special Districts. See Jurisdictions (available at hgps: / /WWW.da11ascoun§y.org/ department/tax/jurisdictions.php) 7 (last Visited Feb. 18, 2019). County.” and [is] LNBGR000233. Linebarger is obligated to “provide responsible for locating delinquent taxpayers” function. property LNBGR000234; LNBGR000238. title all necessary address research and may subcontract that necessary Linebarger must “provide or obtain real abstract before filing suit.” Id. Linebarger “shall perform litigation responsibilities and protect County’s papers required for Sheriff’s delinquent taxes. Linebarger is ” sales, legal remedies including appeals, preparation 0f legal post—judgment discovery, and other actions t0 collect the LNB GR000235. obligated to make “progress reports County on request.” LNBGR000236. Linebarger LNBGROOOZSO-S 1. It must ensure all persons is on all phases of this contract to subject to audit “Who perform and inspection services under this rights. Contract be fully qualified and competent to perform the services required.” LNBGR000238; LNBGR000245 legal activity of (emphasis added). The County retains legal control over all the work: “A11 LINEBARGER HEARD may be reviewed by the County District Attorney for his advice or opinion as needed. In case of a dispute concerning a matter of law between LINEBARGER HEARD and the County District Attorney, the opinion of the District Attorney Will be binding. D. The Nail Road 1 On March 2, ” LNBGR000240. litigation. 2017, Linebarger filed suit on behalf of Dallas County and other taxing units against Nail Road 1 LP, et. a1 for non-payment 0f delinquent (Original Pet). That lawsuit included Steven M. “Sandra Daus of Tin Star Litigation Support on personal knowledge of each of the taxes. See EX. A Strong, an attorney, as defendant. Id. & Title (‘TST’)” filed an affidavit “based facts set forth” therein in the EX. B. Ms. Daus claimed a “fee for said service” of $3,850. Id. Nail Road litigation. See Mr. Strong subsequently served a subpoena on Ms. Daus aimed for costs. See EX. C. 2007 [she] Ms. Daus was deposed 0n June decided t0 see if [she] met With a law firm 61 25-13. From the beginning, Ms. Daus knew the started to do work services to side. for And them.” See EX. payment from Linebarger,” and received payment contract claims here, she admitted “there [Linebarger] Even more and myself.” troubling, was not a D at be provided were for lawsuits. contract formally fact “from the as a check office.” Id. at 64:8-17, 8828-17, 88:22-24, 88:25-89:11, 93:13-20. Fatal t0 firm [she] created She always knew she would “get paid through the courts,” she in 64:8-17. received a and [Linebarger] her claim According to Ms. Daus, “in could do this abstracting on the TinStar, Id. at 16, 2017. at challenging “never clerk’s her breach of made between the law Id. 9:6-9. Ms. Daus testified that she did not have the personal knowledge she swore to in her affidavit, because “all the abstracts — the orders that [she got] from Linebarger, those orders, that abstracting Miranda.” Id. at Ms. Daus The work that went Q. do Id. at 98: 14-18. The Q. Correct. A. Correct. 123:4—9. employees. marked as Exhibit 4, you didn’t really you? abstract? She had no idea Id. at further testified: into the affidavit yourself, either, did A. work is done by [TST employees] Steven and how any 0f that abstracting work was done by her 164:2-24. This was fatal to the affidavit she filed in the Nail Road litigation. Also troubling t0 Linebarger was Ms. Daus’s testimony regarding the owners of TinStar Title, Inc. She “forgot” to mention one of the three owners, Who is paid about $65,000 yearly, because she had “a bad often.” Id. at 110:13-1 12: 18. relationship With him and The following questioning [she didn’t] think of him very is illustrative: Q. And Why didn’t you mention Dan’s name earlier in that question? A. Again, because I have a bad relationship With him. much a part of What I do. So based upon how you have a relationship with I don’t think of him as him determines how you give answers under oath in this deposition? It shouldn’t but But it -- it did. — has? *** Does he have from the access to the bank account at Chase that the money comes into clerks? Yes, he does. Id. at Q. So A. Correct. that’s 113: 19-1 14: 18. another question that you answered incorrect? I mean, She it wasn’t intentional, but later testified I did not answer correctly again. her ownership of TinStar was an “even divide” With two previously-undisclosed White males and established beyond doubt a it that TinStar was not M/WBE. This was particularly troubling because Linebarger relied upon Ms. Daus’s representations that “TinStar” beginning its referral association. new ownership It is was a minority/woman-owned business (“M/WBE”) When Johnson structure that diluted the “policy of Dallas its Aff. 1] 7. Linebarger was unaware of TinStar’s M/WBE status until it heard Ms. Daus’s testimony. County to involve qualified minority/women-owned businesses the greatest extent feasible in the County’s procurement of goods.” see Ex. 10 E (M/WBE to Specifications). Indeed, “[a]11 vendors, suppliers, professionals, and contractors doing business or anticipating doing business with Dallas County shall support, encourage, and implement affirmative all citizens steps towards our 0f Dallas County.” TinStar’s common goal of establishing equal opportunity for new ownership structure thus put Linebarger in conflict with Dallas County’s policy. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Strong filed an affidavit in the Nail Road 1 litigation. See EX. G. swore that “Daus testified that He represented in the requested in the Daus Affidavit; fl 6. she did not perform any of the (ii) set or establish the work or services know how the amount(s) for the fees or set or calculated, or What factors amount of fees requested in the Daus Affidavit ....” Linebarger thus had confirmation from an independent third-party that Ms. Daus’s affidavits were subject to attack based Once Linebarger learned credible and she does not Daus Affidavit are/were determined were or are used to Id. (i) and that TinStar risk Violating its that upon her qualifications and competency. Ms. Daus’s affidavits and testimony were was no longer an M/WBE, ethical and contractual it (at best) not refused to continue to submit obligations. Johnson Aff. 11 them 8. E. This litigation. TinStar filed a request for a Rule 202 Petition on January 12, 2018 in Dallas County. See Ex. F 1] 3. Contrary t0 Ms. Daus’s testimony, TinStar alleged continuing contract with Linebarger t0 perform TinStar alleged 4 “when Linebarger would title it “has had a long-term work on behalf 0f Linebarger.” file suit to collect Id. 11 11. on unpaid taxes, Linebarger had Epsz/ /www.dallascoungy.org/Assets/uploads/docs/purchasing/Purchasing—Manual-OCT- 2016-CLEAN.pdf (last Visited Feb. 22, 2019) at Section 17 (emphasis added). 11 TinStar do a detailed abstract 0f the property to ensure that they had the correct property owner and t0 determine if there were lienholders who needed to be Linebarger instituting the foreclosure and potential the delinquent taxes.” Id. 1] 12. sheriff’s sale According to TinStar, “ contacted prior to of the property subject to [W]hen Linebarger would resolve the matter either by settlement or judgment, then Linebarger was obligated to ensure that TinStar was paid $350 per property from the courts or from the owner of the property. TinStar is paid only Linebarger if the [sic] is successful in pursuing ” its suit. Id. 13. 1] Despite not taking the deposition or discovery ordered in the 202 Proceeding, TinStar filed suit on August 7, 2018 and amended TinStar’s current live petition is its Third its Original Petition 0n October Amended Original Petition, filed 16, 2018. November 15, 2018. TinStar’s theory has remained consistent through the various iterations of its petitions. A11 of the services TinStar allegedly provided Linebarger were in connection with litigation. See 3d Am. taxes and Pet. W 12, 13. “TinStar [was] paid only costs” after a matter was resolved “by settlement or judgment.” are allegedly owed, however, because “Linebarger being paid, is When Linebarger collected the unpaid is Id. 1] 13. Damages interfering With TinStar’s rights to voiding TinStar’s affidavits, eliminating TinStar’s right to payment and affixing affidavits by individuals at Linebarger to improperly seize the funds due and owing to TinStar.” Id. 1] 16. TinStar asserts claims for breach 0f contract, tortious interference with the contractual rights of TinStar, breach of fiduciary duty commit fraud, fraud, these claims—as is and knowing participation owed to TinStar, conspiracy to in a breach 0f fiduciary duty. Id. apparent from the factual allegations purportedly supporting 12 1] 18. A11 0f them—seek to recover for Linebarger’s actions taken on behalf of the taxing authorities, and sovereign immunity bars them. III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITY A. Sovereign Immunity. “Two years after Texas joined the Union, this sovereign immunity: ‘no state can be sued in her Court recognized the doctrine of own courts Without her consent, and then only in the manner indicated by that consent.” Wasson Interests, Ltd v. City S.W.3d 427, 431 (TeX. 2016) (“Wasson I”) (quoting Homer v. DeYoung, (1847)). Texas’s “sovereignty school districts, immunity.” inherent in its TeX. 764, 769 state “share in the state’s inherent 429-30. “Sovereign immunity’ protects the State and state-level entities, While ‘governmental immunity’ protects political subdivisions of the State.” Lubbock Cnty. Water Control and Improvement Dist. S.W.3d 297, 300 n.4 (TeX. 2014). “The two doctrines often use the terms interchangeably.” “Sovereign immunity from v. Church & Akin, L.L. C., are otherwise the same, Id. suit implicates a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction because 561 S.W.3d 495, 500 (TeX. June 22, 2018) (quoting Engelmcm Irrigation S.W.3d 746, 755 (TeX. 2017); Hall (internal quotations omitted). Sovereign jurisdiction.” Tex. Dep’t ofParks and 442 and courts recognizes the courts’ limited authority over the sovereign creating them.” Nazarz' Ina, 514 489 statehood” and counties, municipalities, and other political subdivisions of the Id. at governmental is 1 ofJacksonvilZe, v. V. v. State, Shields Bros, McRaven, 508 S.W.3d 232, 238 (TeX. 2017)) immunity Wildlife Dist. v. it “is properly asserted in a plea t0 the Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26 (TeX. 2004). 13 B. Actions taken in connection With the collection of taxes are governmental actions by definition entitled to immunity. Governmental immunity governmental unit or agent function. Wasson I, derivative of sovereign is is immunity and 489 S.W.3d at 430. If the function is 438 (quoting But when the function is a “is not defined by the legislature as ‘clear’ task; not necessarily a opinions ‘point out the difficulty in determining Whether a function Id. at when acting pursuant to a governmental, rather than proprietary, governmental, distinguishing between the two governmental.” applies Toolee v. defined by the City ofMexz'a, 197 is multiple proprietary 0r S.W.3d 325, 343 (TeX. legislature, the task is straight-forward. state constitution authorizes the legislature to ‘define for all 2006)). “[O]ur purposes those functions of a municipality that are to be considered governmental and those that are proprietary, including reclassifying a function’s classification assigned under prior statute or law.”’ Id. authority (quoting Tex. Const. art. XI, § 13(a)). Indeed, “the legislature has exercised that by enacting the TTCA, which defines specific functions governmental.” Id. at 438-39 common (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. as proprietary or & REM. CODE § 101.0215). “Such democratic enactments” represent “the Will of the people” and “the Texas judiciary has been [applying them] for more than 130 years.” Id. at 439. These “definitional tools” are “most importantfl .”Id. The Legislature provided definitional tools for this case. There governmental unit.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § have thus long held that the “collection of taxes First City, Inc. v. n0 waiver 0f immunity in connection with the assessment 0r collection of taxes for a claim “arising HMktg. Gm, is Sharp, 951 827 S.W.2d at is 101.055 (emphasis added). Courts undoubtedly a government function.” S & S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, n0 480 (“Tax collections activity 14 by a by a city or a school writ); see also district is a governmental function and not a proprietary function”) (citing Black v. Baker, 130 Tex. 454, 458 (1938)). “Tax collection is a governmental function, and the mere fact that the tax collection function has been assigned to a private law from governmental to proprietary.” First City, unpaid delinquent tax accounts. by and through an attorney.” Id. at 827 S.W.2d TEXAS PROP. TAX CODE in litigation, only they can do because “[u]nder its rights to 7). Multiple statutory and their attorneys and §§ 6.30(C); 23. 1242(n); 33.045(a); 34.01; 41.66. It simply is a payroll employee of the governmental unit, or a private attorney,” imposing personal liability S.W.2d is A governmental entity can appear in the courts only 481 (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. “does not matter Whether the attorney policy.” First City, 827 That in order t0 enforce provisions provide the authority t0 tax only to taxing authorities agents. the nature of the function at 480. must utilize the courts section 33.41, the governmental entity collect firm does not change at 481. The upon the lawyer “would be contrary to public attorneys are acting as the government— because so. Multiple courts have applied these concepts to Linebarger and held that Linebarger entitled to governmental immunity. The Court of Appeals in Houston held that Linebarger “can assert the governmental immunity enjoyed by the taxing Goggcm, Blaz'r& Sampson, L.L.P., 333 n0 pet). v. S.W.3d Lz'nebarger 954321, at *2 (Tex. entities. ” Ross S.W.3d 736, 745 (Tex. App.—H0uston The San Antonio Court of Appeals held School District, 505 Guajardo is 24, 30 (Tex. the same. Vick App.—San Antonio v. Floresvz'lle v. Linebarger, [lst Dist] Independent 2016, pet. denied); see also Goggcm Blair & Sampson, L.L.P. N0. 04-04-0021 1-CV, 2005 App.—San Antonio , April 27, 2005, pet. denied) Doggett were under contract to perform duties, 15 z'.e., 2010, WL (“Hem LGBS and the collection of property taxes, that otherwise would have to be performed by a governmental official who would be immunity.”). The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agrees—Linebarger because it “protects government officials sued in representing state taxing entities.” Iraheta v. is their official capacities Lz'nebarger entitled to entitled to immunity and attorneys Goggcm Blair & Sampson, L.L.P., 734 Fed. Appx. 216, 219 (5th Cir. 2018). The legislature has defined actions arising “in connection With the assessment 0r collection of taxes” as governmental functions. entity must utilize the courts in order to enforce “Under section 33.41, the governmental rights to collect its unpaid delinquent tax accounts. A governmental entity can appear in the courts only by and through an attorney.” First City, 827 S.W.2d at 481 (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 7). The governmental entity and Linebarger are one and the same for purposes of immunity. C. The “governmental function” definitions are dispositive irrespective of whether a claim sounds in contract or tort. On October 5, 2018, the Texas Supreme Court addressed sovereign immunity in the context 0f contract Claims. See Wasson (Tex. 2018) (“ Wasson II”). focus belongs It Interest, Ltd. v. City ofJac/esonvz’lle, 559 S.W.3d 142 clarified that, in the governmental/proprietary context, “the on the nature of the contract, not the nature of the breach.” Id. at 150. Then, the Wasson II court set forth a four-part test for evaluating undefined contractual activities “[b]ecause the Tort Claims Act does not enumerate leasing property as a governmental or proprietary function.” The 150. four-part Wasson II test applies only ifthe accused function governmental in the made Id. at TTCA. is not listed as Interpreting courts, including the Dallas Court of Appeals, this clear: 16 TTCA] had not identified those functions as either governmental or proprietary functions, we would apply a four-part test t0 determine Whether they were governmental, as the Texas Supreme Court did in an opinion issued after submission of our case. [citing Wasson II]. However, “If section 101 .0215 [0f the because the functions expressly covered by the [contract] are expressly identified in section 101.0215 as governmental functions, we do not apply the Wasson II test.. We conclude that these functions are what the Legislature has told us they are: governmental functions.” City ofLancaster v. White Rock Commercial, LLC, N0. 05-17-00583-CV, 2018 6716932, at *4 (TeX. App.— Dallas Dec. 21, 2018, n0 pet.) (emphasis added). . WL “If the governmental action is not expressly listed in section 101 .0215, courts must apply the general definitions of governmental and proprietary functions” and apply a four—part test. (citing Wasson II at 150). “If the City’s actions are listed as a governmental function under the TTCA, we have no discretion, regardless of the City’s motives, to declare the actions as proprietary.” MEN. Com v. City ofCorsz'cana, N0. 10-16-00364—CV, 2018 WL 5986953, App.—Waco Nov. 14, 2018, pet. filed) (emphasis added) (citing City Water Supply at *8 (Tex. ofPlcmo v. Homoky, 294 S.W.3d 809, 814 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no “[I]f an action is pet.)). not expressly mentioned in Section 101 .0215, courts must apply and proprietary functions.” City ofMerkel the general definitions of governmental v. Copeland, 561 (citing S.W.3d 720, 724 (Tex. App.—Eastland, Oct. 18, 2018, pet. filed) Wasson II four—factor “If a function test to evaluate the “general definitions”). TTCA’s nonexclusive list of 36 governmental governmental in nature,’ and [the court] is left With ‘no discretion or authority to hold otherwise.” City of Westworth Village v. City 0f White Settlement, 558 S.W.3d 232, 241-43 (Tex. App.—Fort is included in the functions, the legislature ‘has deemed Worth 2018) it (quoting Tex. Bay Chem) Hill, L.P. City ofFort Worth, 257 S.W.3d App.—Fort 388-89 no Worth (Tex. 2008, 379, pet.)). 12. “may not various aspects of [the defendant’s] operation into discrete functions and recharacterize certain of those functions as proprietary.” Plaintiff LLC v. ‘split Triple BB, (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. N0. 03-17-00149-CV, 2018 2018) (citing Wasson II and then Village ofBrz'arclz'fi 21, governmental function analysis); (quoting City ofPlcmo 815) 17 v. WL 6715272, at *4 strictly applying Homoley, 294 S.W.3d at The examined function and the list of government functions provided by the not be verbatim for immunity t0 apply, as shown by Wasson II and Accused Function Governmental Function “allowing the public to adopt animals from a owned animal control its TTCA need progenysz Cite Wasson II, 559 S.W.3d 153 II, 559 S.W.3d 153 II, 559 S.W.3d 153 II, 559 S.W.3d 153 n.7 city- shelter” “operation of shuttle service “airports, regulation of to airport” traffic, and transportation Wasson n.7 systems” “operation 0f marinas” removal ofbarge Wasson n.7 sale 0f baled TCEQ—permitted hay activities Wasson n.7 contract to upgrade water- provision of water and treatment plant. sewer service “disposal 0f effluent by operation of a wastewater sale” treatment “sale 0f wholesale water t0 residents and non-residents” WL Triple BB, 201 8 6715272, at *4 Marlee], 561 S.W.3d at 725 facility “waterworks” 0r “water and sewer” MEN, 2018 WL 5986953, at *8 These post-Wasson II cases are consistent With a significant body of precedent refusing to parse government functions to characterize Dallas Court of Appeals stated that function in the “ [i]f them (citing Tex. River Barges v. City For example, the the City’s actions are listed as a governmental TTCA, we have no discretion, the actions as proprietary.” City ofPlano as proprietary ones. v. regardless 0f the City’s motives, t0 declare Homoky, 294 S.W.3d at 8146 ofScm Antonio, 21 S.W.3d 347, 357 (Tex. (emphasis added) App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. denied». “[A] plaintiff may not ‘split various aspects of [a government agent’s] 5 But see City ofWestworth, 558 S.W.3d at 236, 243 (holding “Economic Development Program Grant Agreement” between two cities not governmental because “tax collection comes into play only as the basis for calculation of the periodic payments due under the agreement”). 6 Both the Austin and Waco courts 0f appeals have cited this case post- Wasson II. See 2018 6715272, at *4. 5986953, at *8; Triple BB, 2018 MEN, WL WL 18 operation into discrete functions and recharacterize certain of those functions as proprietary.” Id. at 170, 178 (Tex. 815 (emphasis added) (quoting City ofScm Antonio App.—San Antonio v. Butler, 131 S.W.3d 2004, pet. denied». work in Linebarger’s alleged actions of contracting With TinStar to provide abstracting support of litigation are part of the governmental function of tax collection. The actual act 0f tax collection was is performed through so that “Linebarger TinStar alleges had the it would litigation. TinStar alleges that the service file suit to collect on unpaid taxes.” 3d correct property owner and to determine if there property subject to the delinquent taxes.” engaged to provide is activity for, not taxes.” Indeed, the Property showing that the collection. TEX. PROP. And the damages 1] 13 12. 1] were lienholders The Id. sheriff’s sale service TinStar alleges it was of the contractually requires that this information be included with services alleged provided are necessary TAX CODE who needed t0 be merely “in connection With,” “the collection of Tax Code and any essential to tax § 33.43(a)(8). sought are court costs that Ms. Daus admitted are “paid through the courts. [She] never received a Pet. Pet. provided provided “a detailed abstract of the property to ensure that [Linebarger] contacted prior t0 Linebarger instituting the foreclosure and potential petition Am. it payment from Linebarger.” Ex. (“When Linebarger would resolve the matter either D at 88: 12—14; see also 3d Am. by settlement or judgment, Linebarger was obligated to ensure that TinStar was paid $350.00 per property from the courts or from the owner of the property”). Even any damages, those claimed damages do not 7 Linebarger reserves fatal all exist incorrectly assuming TinStar is entitled to but for the litigation that causes them.7 defenses to TinStar’s claim for damages, including but limited to the causation issues addressed above. 19 Here, TinStar is attempting to carve out the litigation services allegedly provided by TinStar from the governmental action of participating in the Moreover, taX-collection litigation itself. It cannot. activities are treated differently than the non—exclusive list of 36 government functions provided in section 101 .0215 and addressed by Wasson II. Indeed, prior cases have focused on section 101 .055 which states the waiver of immunity in the TTAC does not apply to a claim “arising in connection with the assessment 0r collection of taxes by a government unit.” “In connection” governmental immunity does not protect only direct actions taken in litigation, like instituting suit, submitting evidence, or filing pleadings. For example, the San Antonio court 0f appeals District, in Vick App.—San Antonio 505 S.W.3d 24, 30 (Tex. v. Floresvz'lle Independent School 2016), found that governmental immunity protected Linebarger’s alleged action of advising “the governmental units contact Bank of America to seek to repayment of the delinquent taxes.” In other words, the complained-of actions were extra-litigation communications between taxing authorities and third-party lenders that were secured on the property court started With the recognition that waiver of immunity for collection of taxes ANN. tort “ [u]nder the Texas Tort Claims Act, there claims ‘arising by a governmental unit.” § 101 .055(1)). The in foreclosure proceedings. The is Vick no in connection With the assessment or Id. (quoting TEX. CIV. PRAC. alleged discussions With & REM. CODE Bank of America were “taken in the course 0f accomplishing the governmental act delegated to the attorneys by the taxing authorities that enjoy immunity for the very to protect Linebarger from as suit, it same should here. 20 act.” Id. Id. Governmental immunity applied “In connection With” required. There written into the is TTCA and that broad connection is all that is and has long been immunity is assessment or collection of taxes.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. Wasson 11’s analysis applies, it shows in connection With the for claims “arising & REM. CODE § 101 .055. And even if that the governmental definition of “tax collection” broad enough to encompass Linebarger’s alleged actions here. Under either set is of authority, the Legislature never vested this Court with subject-matter jurisdiction over TinStar’s claims. A11 claims D. Linebarger The is must be dismissed. an agent of the taxing units and is entitled to governmental immunity. attorney-client relationship is a special one, With unique rights and duties. Courts have long-held that “[t]he attorney-client relationship one of principal and agent” and is “the rights of each in a cause of action during the existence of that relationship are necessarily dependent Benton, 357 upon and inseparably interwoven With attomey-client relationship endures, with pet.) v. S.W.3d 198, 203 (Tex. clients”); Wakefield Houston [15‘ v. Ayers, Dist] 2016, n0 attomey-client relationship is rule.” Id. at 568; see also one of principal and agent”); Jenkens & No. 01-14-00648-CV, 2016 pet.) (same); is v. corresponding legal effect 0f principal and App.—Da11as 2002, no S.W.3d 319, (Tex. App.—Houston Co. 398 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Tex. App.—Da11as 2013, n0 Searoc/e, (“The attorney-client relationship Riggs, 87 its must necessarily bind the other as a general Tactz'calAz'rDefinse Semis, Inc. Dow Chem. (internal citation omitted). Indeed, “as long as the S.W.2d 565, 567 (Tex. 1962) agent, the acts 0f one the other.” [14th an agency Gilchrist pet.) (“lawyers are agents of their WL 4536454, at * (Tex. App.— Gusma Props, LP. v. Travelers Lloyds Ins. C0., 514 Dist] 2016, n0 pet.) (same). Simply put, “[t]he relationship. The attorney’s acts Within the scope of his or her employment are regarded as the client’s 21 and omissions acts; the attorney’s v. negligence is attributed t0 the client.” Gavenda v. Strata Energy, Ina, 705 S.W.2d 690, 693 (Tex. 1986). It cannot be reasonably disputed that Linebarger the taxing authorities. See Johnson Aff. W is in attorney-client relationship With LNBGR000230-260. TinStar attempts 3, 4, 6; to avoid the legal ramifications of that relationship by terming Linebarger as a mere “independent contractor” required to exercise professional judgment. Both are misplaced. Attorneys are unlike general independent contractors. For example, an attorney owes her client fiduciary duties as a matter of law. Mam; E. Mgmt, 451 S.W.3d 104, 113 (Tex. Bivz'ns App.—Da11as 2014, n0 Foundation pet.) (“In v. highland Capital some cases, a fiduciary relationship arises as a matter of law, such as in attorney-client or trustee relationships”). Attorneys are required to abide by disciplinary rules, including that a lawyer is “zealously pursue clients’ interests Within the bounds of the law.” TEX. DISCIP. PROF. CONDUCT the objectives essential at preamble 3. A lawyer “shall abide by a client’s decisions and general methods of representation.” element in the lawyer’s relationship to a Id. at 1.02(a)(1). required t0 RULES concerning “Loyalty is an client.” Id. at 1.06 cmt. 1, 19. “[N]either the lawyer’s personal interests, the interests of other clients, nor the desires of third persons should be permitted to dilute the lawyer’s loyalty to the client.” Indeed, “[W]hether an attorney is employed as Id. at 5.04 cmt. 4. an in—house attorney employee 0r is an outside attorney acting as an independent contractor is irrelevant since the ethical professional responsibilities apply to both types of attorneys.” TX Eth. Op. 484 (Feb. 1994) (emphasis added). The additional fiduciary duties and ethical requirements owed by attorneys to their clients places attorneys in a different context than other independent- contractor relationships. 22 That lawyers are required to exercise professional does not change their status as agents for their typically exercise, control over the that a client lawyer any may defer to its judgment in the exercise 0f their duties clients. “ [C]lients typically have, but do not manner and means of their lawyer’s performance. But lawyer’s expertise in executing certain tasks does not render the less the client’s agent.” Celandese C0179. v. Sahagun, No. 05-16-00868-CV, 2017 WL 3405186, at *4 (Tex. App.—Da11as Aug. 9, 2017, pet. denied), reh’g denied (Nov. 2, 2017). “The question Whether is [the client] had the right to control her manner and means, not whether they chose to exercise that right regarding the final details.” Welch v. S.W.3d Milton, 185 586, 596 (TeX. App.—Da11as 2006, Id. at *5; see also pet. denied) (“the exercise of professional judgment does not necessarily exclude someone from the definition 0f an employee”). And, as discussed in more and contractual means detail below, Dallas County had both the fiduciary to control the details of Linebarger’s For these reasons, each case addressing immunity collection activities has TinStar. examined attorneys GTECH Com v. Steele, filed)—recognize that attorneys are treated The Court for alleged in Brown 8 approach suggested by & Gay Eng’g, Inc. v. Olz'vczres, 461 S.W.3d 549 S.W.3d 768 (TeX. App.—Austin 2018, pet. differently. & Gay “emphasize[d] that the [plaintiffs] were suing Brown & Gay conduct that neither party had attempted t0 attribute t0 the actions or directives of the Authority.” 122-23). for attorneys participating in tax differently that the Even TinStar’s foundational cases--Brown 117 (TeX. 2015) and work. GTECH That posture is v. Steele, 549 S.W.3d at 776 (citing Brown & Gay, 461 S.W.3d at “significant in understanding the analysis that followed.” Here, Linebarger expressly governmental entity. states that TinStar is 23 suing Linebarger for actions by the Id. In finding no sovereign immunity, the Brown cases because “[t]he & Gay Court distinguished the prior Linebarger was gravamen of these decisions that the claimants were deemed in the Circumstances of those cases t0 have sought relief against the government rather than the contractor.” actions as Id. at 780-81. Here, by filing suit against defined by the TTCA, TinStar has sued government and taken Brown & Gay and GTECH’S for relief effectively against the “discretionary” analysis out of play. But assuming that authority did apply, TinStar’s Whether sovereign immunity applied in a suit Linebarger directly for governmental is incorrect. The Court reviewed to private taxes.” 126. It immunity law firms hired was to a private Id. at 124. “[S]imilar the “government’s right to control that led these courts to extend government contractor.” Sys., Id. Also instructive was the Austin Court of 273 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, n0 Which the private administrator of a retirement plan was because it entitled to immunity “acted as an agent of and in a fiduciary capacity for the agency,” like an attorney. 889-90. But in Brown thus not apply. 461 clear that & S.W.3d Justice Hecht, joined make & government With collecting unpaid pet), in to [that] prior cases that found contractors Within the to assist the Appeal’s decision in Foster v. TeacherRet. Id. at firm were present in prior Linebarger cases in Which immunity was “extended Id. at Gay addressed and construct a roadway.” Brown ambit of governmental immunity because of a “control requirement.” principles” of control & regarding “a private engineering lawfully contracted with a governmental unit to design Gay, 461 S.W.3d at 119. Brown by Gay, “no fiduciary relationship exist[ed]” and immunity did at 127. Justices Willett government control and Guzman, concurred on “is relevant example, the government’s control over its lawyer 24 but not conclusive.” is necessarily limited this important point Id. at 130. “For by the lawyer’s duty under the rules of professional conduct to ‘exercise independent professional judgment’ in representing a client.” Id. immune from limited control notwithstanding, a lawyer has been said t0 be conduct in representing a governmental agency.” 747). CONDUCT 2.01). (quoting TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF. Id. (citing Ross, 333 “That suit for his S.W.3d at 742, 745- GTECH followed this analysis and noted the continuing Viability of the prior Linebarger cases, as supported by the same comparison to Foster’s fiduciary duty control. GTECH v. Steele, 549 S.W.3d Contrary to TinStar’s arguments, nothing in at 780-81 n.65. those cases abrogated the immunity claimed by Linebarger in this and prior cases. those cases show contractors” Vick, is that attorneys are treated differently than other “independent When participating in the and First City. Linebarger’s provide much more than the governmental immunity collection of taxes, as has special duties and obligations When providing an been long held in Ross, to requisite control necessary to bring its taxing-authority clients them within the ambit of essential function: collecting taxes. E. Linebarger’s contracts with Dallas County shows that of its agency for purposes of TinStar’s allegations. None What it was acting within the scope of the aforementioned cases dissected Linebarger’s contracts With taxing authorities t0 determine Linebarger’s immunity. Out of an abundance of caution, Linebarger does so here. At the outset, Dallas County “agree[d] to employ” Linebarger delinquent taxes, penalty and interest owing to the County.” for “the collection of all LNBGR000233. Linebarger is required to “perform litigation responsibilities and protect County’s legal remedies including appeals, preparation of legal papers required for Sheriff’s sales, post-judgment discovery, and other actions to collect the delinquent taxes. 25 ” LNBGR000235. Linebarger’s contract With Dallas County provides significant elements of control. Linebarger is obligated to make “progress reports on all phases of this contract to County on request.” LNBGR000236 (emphasis added). Linebarger rights. LNBGROOOZSO-S 1. The County retains activity of is subject to audit and inspection work: “A11 legal legal control over all the LINEBARGER HEARD may be reviewed by the County District Attorney for his advice 0r opinion as needed. In case of a dispute concerning a matter of law between LINEBARGER HEARD and the County District Attorney, the opinion of the District Attorney Will be binding. Driving ” down further, LNBGR000240. the alleged actions of “contracting” With TinStar are also directly Within the scope of Linebarger’s delegated authority. Linebarger necessary address research and [is] responsible for locating delinquent taxpayers” subcontract that necessary function. provide or obtain real property ensure all persons title “Who perform obligated to “provide is LNBGR000234; LNBGR000238. abstract before filing suit.” Id. services under this Contract all and may Linebarger “Will But Linebarger must be fully qualified and competent to perform the services required.” LNBGR000238; LNBGR000245. This last portion is important: When Linebarger received Ms. Daus’s transcript in the Nail Road I litigation and Mr. Strong’s participated in the underlying abstracting work sworn affidavit, it learned she had not t0 in her affidavit. Putting aside ethical concerns, this testimony put Linebarger directly in conflict with obligation to ensure that TinStar required.” was “fully qualified Even if Linebarger “fired” TinStar deposition and competent to its contractual perform the services as TinStar claims, doing so 26 any was directly within the scope of its contractual obligations to maintain competency and qualifications for its “subcontractors.” For this reason, too, TinStar’s claims should be dismissed? F. Dallas County mandates that its vendors utilize Linebarger’s actions regarding the same. It M/WBE business and directed has been the “policy 0f Dallas County t0 involve qualified minority/women-owned E businesses t0 the greatest extent feasible in the County’s procurement 0f goods,” see Ex. (M/WBE Specifications), professionals, County and Dallas County mandates and contractors doing business or shall support, encourage, that “[a]11 vendors, suppliers, anticipating doing business with Dallas and implement affirmative steps” for the benefit of M/WBE businesses.” Linebarger’s utilization of M/WBE businesses is necessary to its client relationship. Johnson Aff. 11 7. During Ms. Daus’s testimony in the Nail Road I litigation, however, she testified that she “forgot” to mention one of the three owners, had “a bad relationship With him and 9 who is paid about $65,000 yearly, because she [she didn’t] think 0f him very often.” Id. at 110: 13- Linebarger anticipates TinStar will attempt t0 rely upon Pamela Johnson’s prior testimony is a “quasi-independent contractor” to attempt to avoid the consequences 0f that Linebarger Doing so is improper. Gamer v. Fidelity Bank, 244 App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (“A wn'tten agreement will be enforced as written and cannot be added to, varied, or contradicted by parol testimony. Because the Linebarger’s contract with Dallas County. S.W.3d 855, 860 (Tex. . evidence the trial [plaintiff] .. sought to admit contradicted the express terms 0f the written agreement, court did not err in excluding it”); First Bank v. Bmmz'tt, 519 S.W.3d 95, 110 (Tex. 2017) (“Extrinsic evidence cannot be used to show that the parties probably meant, or could have meant, something other than What their agreement stated.” (quotation omitted). In any event Ms. Johnson’s testimony regarding Linebarger’s “quasi-independent contractor” relationship is not inconsistent With the extra-contractual obligations lawyers owe t0 their clients. 1° hfips: / /Www.da11ascoun:y.org/Assets/uploads/docs/purchasing/Purchasing—Manual- OCT-2016-CLEAN.pdf (last visited Feb. 22, 2019) at Section 17 (emphasis added). 27 112: 18. She admitted her prior testimony on the subject was “incorrect” When subjected to cross-examination. Id. at 113: 19-1 14: 18. She later testified her ownership of TinStar was an “even divide” With two previously-undisclosed White males and established beyond doubt that TinStar was not a M/WBE. When Linebarger learned this previously-undisclosed information, referring abstracting utilize M/WBE’S. work to TinStar because, in part, 0f its it commitment discontinued to Dallas county t0 Linebarger was directed by this policy to cease using TinStar and since utilized compliant M/WBE’S for abstracting purposes. it has This too was squarely Within Linebarger’s delegated authority by the taxing authorities and demonstrates Linebarger’s immunity. G. Linebarger’s immunity has not been waived. TinStar has the burden to Res. Conservation plaintiffs’ “waive its Comm’n. V. show that Linebarger’s immunity was waived. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 854-55 (TeX. 2002) (discussing burden to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity). The “policy decision” to sovereign immunity” belongs “largely to the legislature.” Nazari, 2018 3077659, at *3. “When the Legislature makes the policy waives governmental immunity, Church See Tex. Natural & Akin, 442 S.W.3d it decision to enact a statute that can do so ‘only by clear and unambiguous language.” at 301 (quoting Toolee, 197 S.W.3d at 328-29). As such, “courts should be very hesitant to declare immunity nonexistent in any particular case. 489 S.W.3d WL ” Wasson, at 435. TinStar did not attempt to make any showing 0f waiver. That is because the TTCA contains a limited waiver 0f sovereign immunity that permits suits for only three types 0f tort claims: (1) injury 0r damage caused by the negligent use of publicly 28 owned vehicles; (2) injury or damage arising out of a condition or use of tangible personal property; injury or damage arising out of a condition or use of real property Sampson Code v. Univ. ofTex., 500 S.W.3d 380, 384 (TeX. 2016); TinStar, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy to commit (3) premises defects). TeX. CiV. Prac. see also § 101 .021. TinStar’s tort claims for tortious interference (zie. and & Rem. With the contractual rights of fraud, and fraud are not within the scope 0f this waiver. TinStar’s breach of contract claims are not Within the scope of any waiver either. Texas Local Government Code Section 271 152 provides . immunity to suit for the for “Waive[r] of sovereign purpose of adjudicating a claim for breach of contract,” and conditions of [that] subchapter.” One 0f those required elements “the contract must be 201 1). Another is that the contract must TinStar has alleged a vague “continuing v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d subject it is to the “terms in writing.” City ofHouston While is that 128, 135 (TeX. “state the essential terms of the agreement.” Id. H H oral” contract that meets neither requirement. This too makes sense; otherwise, a plaintiff could characterize fraud as an oral contract t0 avoid the limited waiver in the TTCA. Thus, the contract claims also fail t0 provide subject matter jurisdiction. H. TinStar’s claims are not “Ripeness is ripe and the court does not have jurisdiction over them. an element of subject—matter jurisdiction.” S.W.Zd 243, 245 (Tex. 1994). Under the ripeness time a lawsuit Gibson, 22 is Bar 0f Tex. v. Gomez, 891 doctrine, [courts] consider whether, at the filed, the facts are sufficiently developed. S.W.3d State ” . . Waco Indep. School Dist. 849, 851-52 (Tex. 2000) (emphasis in original). “A case is v. not ripe When determining Whether the plaintiff has a concrete injury depends on contingent 0r hypothetical facts, or upon events that have not yet 29 come to pass.” Id. at 852. “The courts of this state are not empowered to give advisory opinions [and] cases that are not yet ripe.” Patterson Ina, 971 S.W.2d 439, 443 (Tex. contingent or hypothetical v. 1998). facts, or “ prohibition extends to Planned Parenthood ofHouston and Southwest Texas, “A case upon is When its not ripe events that have not yet TinStar’s allegations demonstrate that TinStar, [t]his its case was not ripe resolution depends come on t0 pass. Id. When filed. According to [W]hen Linebarger would resolve the matter either by settlement 0r judgment, Linebarger was obligated to ensure that TinStar was paid $350.00 per property from the courts or from the owner of the unpaid taxes and costs.” 3d property. TinStar Am. Pet. 1] 13. is paid only Thus, according to TinStar, contingent on settlement or judgment and are only ripe unpaid taxes and costs. When Linebarger collected the “When Linebarger it is nonsuited, and for cases that are costs. T0 the collected the seeking as damages claims regarding cases for which judgments are pending but there has been n0 recovery of taxes 0r namely the claims are ” But TinStar does not deny that events, its still costs, for cases that pending. Those claims are based successful completion of each lawsuit and the were upon contingent collection of taxes and extent TinStar seeks recovery 0f those future claims, the Court does not have jurisdiction over them. IV. The Court immunity for lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Linebarger has governmental its legislature has and CONCLUSION actions in connection With delinquent property tax collection. defined those that definition is activities as governmental—for both dispositive. Linebarger work and to maintain standards regarding is tort The and contract claims— contractually obligated to obtain abstracting the competency of any “subcontractors,” 30 and the actions alleged by TinStar are squarely Within Linebarger’s Moreover, Linebarger is Linebarger at odds with required to utilize its clients by legal and contractual M/WBE businesses by surreptitiously changing its its client, ownership authority. but TinStar put structure. Attempting to avoid the limited waiver of tort claims by claiming an “oral contract” that is contradicted by Ms. Daus’s sworn testimony does not Change the ultimate legal conclusion: Linebarger Finally, lawsuits is governmental immunity and TinStar’s claims must be dismissed. by TinStar’s own admissions and jurisdiction entitled to are not yet ripe. For its claims are contingent on the results of prior this separate reason, the and should dismiss TinStar’s Court lacks subject matter claims. Respectfully submitted, /$/ Andrew M Howard Andrew M. Howard Texas Bar N0. 24059973 amh@andrewmhoward.com ANDREW M. HOWARD, PLLC 5220 Spring Valley Road, TX 75254 Ste. 530 Dallas, Tele: (214) 974-0585 Fax: (469) 645-0166 Shukri Abdi Texas Bar N0. 24105486 sabdi@shorechan.com SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 3300 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 593-91 10 (214) 593-91 11 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 31 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby was served on all certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument counsel of record in accordance with the Rules 0f Civil Procedure through the Court’s e-filing and service system on February 22, 2019. /s/ Andrew M Howard Andrew M. Howard 32 ND- DC-ifl-lfl-fifi TINSTAR'I‘H'LE INC. de’hfa TinS‘LEI. Ijfiytim Suppon and Tide. [Hm DISTRICT CDUET § § § H‘aitnfifi. E § v- DALLAS § § LIHEBARGER GGGGAH BLAIR a; CDW, TEXAS 5 SMSUN. LLP. § 'fi Dfifendam. AFFIDAVIT DF THE STATE DE TEXAS 1. and thc undrrsigned a‘umurity, name. is cums: and am Maud upcm "I pummliy me duly mum stamd umn. PMiE-ElA P- am mmpetmttu make this aflidavit. 2- IDHNSGN fi win: after being by "My P. i Cflm BMW JOHNSON. Pmn fi DF BEFORE ME. Mm DISTRICT CDURT § m}- persunal JDHNSDN. All of the appealed PALII'ELA P. her Dam: Lam. aver eiflteen (lEhrcm fir age sutemcm: sctfimh herein am ml: and ml‘cdgt. am an, {aunmey licensed m maniac in the. Slam ufTezas and a partner at mebmgu Guggan Blair 3'. Sampscm, LLP {“Limtmrger"), Defendant in the nhwe-styled actinn. Lrinebargtr specializes in assisting gawnmmntal unil: waver delinquent mimhlcs. A sigmficam gunman nf'IjncbaIgEt’s busincsa in Tara: is devmefl m mflufling mac assnciatcd with d1: assessment and impasiliun ofannual ad valnrem property 3-. M'Fllwp'n" “Linebarfir mntracm with varimu taxing m' PAMELA P. Mm unils, Lthfludiug Dallas mam. Canary. m Pm“ mas Legal counsel for the taxing units pursuant m Mun 45.30 fifth: Texas Property Ta: mum delinqucnt pmpflfiy um, which an: uscd m fund public Cad: (flu: "T1: Code”) and mines. such as palm: 3nd fine pmtectinn. Educatiun. and roads. Those mnfidmual Mannadun. including mmpeniu'w bidding wmfld ham Lineharger‘a Imam given its dedicated mnuam cimtain inl'bnmtitm. disdflsure ut'wtid'l and spatiaiufli pram in this area. Specifically. Linebargcr‘s campemum would h: able to detemflne Lmbargu’s mmpmit‘m: advantages regudhlg 1h: mice: pm'fl'ded m flu: taxing units' 4. "Unm- thc terms ul‘each cummm. Limbarger I undertake all lawful, steps and pmoL-dures mntran tn mum: my unpaid mmmm. nhmining m: mt‘m'dng tax liens a5 “The 5. Jul? 1 balances, 'I'hls includes walnuts. filing iamuirs amhm-ized by Inca] tax mam m m: Tax mm: is disqminn- delegamd 1hr: obligation carry uul die intent and m plum of making phnn: £31151 doing its sit: fisits, m sag]; mumirm, and ifnexeamry. Cndz. “turns over” dchqumt autumn“ m Limhargfl 1m of nth year. “Btfim: 6. :mity Hut knnwn as. re'mnis, has. an a lawman d1: filing mums: in abstract um, identity. and lmatlnn of each pawn m“ the underhring real mud "Whm Linebargcr bcgzn that Tinsta: Litigation ("LUWBE"]- ins anther pubiir: mmrds. association with Sandra Dans. firm: 0f Linebargcr’s cummtifi-u-E advantages “Ms. Dana's mfirmny mamm or Emu Jm‘m r. Ms. Dana Suppmrt & Tim: was a minnrirya’wnman_owned business Cuunqr's pfllicy an ufiflzhmua qualified 3. be darennint-d (atherwisa m 1:11: wm'kj. whflh includes amnng nther thing. Icvimring me deed pmhate rmmls. mun. m:nnfls, and i‘. pmpcny mus: is cumplyr’mg wim Dallas MI‘WBE whcmrrr passitlle. in Ihe depusitim taken 1'11 Ihe case styled Daflns Emmy Pm: 1 :rahr. NEH Emmi; LEE! antiwar NnIx—l‘bflflflfifi. problems fm- ttu: the date fifth: taxing units regarding dctcnmncd mat in emi'ml Linebargcr, acting as cuunsel for the taxing any mm, the best iumests 0f its diam: (the taxing units} umuld nut be served gains forward by ufim‘ng. subsequcm can‘t; be based “pan. as, whcflm any 1:th affidavim mind b: ufihcd alter mam. Cnnseqmandy. including Dallas Cflunnr. mated practical. as mfll part. relying. or nthururia: allum'ng any Dams at any Tinfim afidavim." FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGH’I‘. THE STATE DE mm CDUNI'Y 0F DAILAS 1 g HEREBY CERTLFT flu: cm this day. before me. am amen Stau- uf Texas duiy unmanned in me m take acknowledgments, manually appeared PAMELA P. JDHNS-DN, who i5 pcmmally knuwn before a m me and who executed The foregoing Affidavit, acknowledg‘ng me thanh- rnattcn cunnined therein an: mu: amicurren and mthm hermaal knuwladge. M mung; my ham: am atfiml m1 m unis gymfimgma. fix, v I - - tn. 5m Hum Pubhr; 56?:3mfifl My Cflmmminn Emma. Ngfléfi'fiifififim “Himmhpim‘oH HE}: unmvrrurmutu ?.JUHMON _ PAGES EXHIBIT A FILED DALLAS COUNTY 3/2/2017 9:43:59 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK SUIT NO. TX-1 7-00386 DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL IN § THE DISTRICT COURT § VS. JUDICIAL DISTRICT § § NAIL ROAD 1 LP, ET AL DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: I. PLAINTIFF! S l is brought under TEXAS PROPERTY TAX CODE § 33.41 by the following named whether one 0r more, each of Which is a taxing unit and legally constituted and authorized t0 impose and collect taxes on property: This suit Plaintiff(s), DALLAS COUNTY, PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT, DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND AND LANCASTER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT The Plaintiff(s) intends discovery to be conducted under Level 2 of Rule 190, Texas Rules 0f Civil Procedure. DEFENDANT! S t The following are named as Defendant(s) in this suit and may be served With by service 0f citation at the address and in the manner shown as follows: notice of these claims Nail Road serving its A Texas Limited Partnership, upon whom service may be obtained by Registered Agent, Steven Strong at 4713 W. Lovers Ln., Suite 204, Dallas, TX 1 LP, 75209; Steven M. Rem Only Northmoor Dr., Strong, (In 2007-2016), 5509 for tax years 2000-2006; In Dallas, Personam Only for tax years TX 75230; unknown, whose location is unknown, and such person's unknown heirs, successors and assigns, whose identity and location are unknown, unknown owners, such unknown owner's heirs, successors and assigns, and any and all other persons, including adverse claimants, owning or having or claiming any legal or equitable interest in or lien upon the property which is the if subject 0f the delinquent tax claim in this case. The following taxing unit(s), whether one or more, is joined as a party herein as required by TEXAS PROPERTY TAX CODE § 33.44(a) because it may have a claim for delinquent taxes against all or part of the same property described below: NONE. The foregoing named taxing unit(s), if any, is invited to Plaintiff’s Original Petition sdt add its claim by intervening herein. Page 1 of 36 Suitkey# 2367287 Acct No. 60175630010030000, 60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 II. Claims for filing of this costs suit, all up taxes t0 the becoming delinquent 0n on same, are incorporated in this suit, and is incurred and all interest that any time subsequent all penalties, interest, Plaintiff(s) is further entitled to accrues on all t0 the attorney’s fees, and Plaintiff(s) is entitled to recover the proper proof, without further citation or notice. penalty that said property at day ofjudgment, including same, upon recover each delinquent taxes imposed 0n the property from the date ofjudgment t0 the date 0f sale. III. each separately described property shown in “Exhibits A-l through A-ll”, there are delinquent taxes, penalties, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs justly due, owing and unpaid t0 As t0 and in the amounts shown and made a part hereof by reference for all purposes. Plaintiff(s) for the tax years therein, said exhibit being attached hereto IV. which this suit is brought. The taxes were imposed in the amount(s) stated in “Exhibits A-l through A-l 1” on each separately described property for each year specified and on each person named, if known, Who owned the property 0n January 1 0f the year for Which the tax was imposed. Plaintiff(s) now has and asserts a lien 0n each property described herein t0 secure the payment 0f all taxes, penalties, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs due. Plaintiff(s) affirmatively avers that all things required by law t0 be done have been done properly by the appropriate officials and all conditions precedent have been met. A11 of the taxes were authorized by law and legally imposed in the county in V. A11 of the property described in “Exhibits A-l through A-l 1” was, at the time the taxes were assessed, located Within the suit is brought. this suit A11 Defendants named boundaries 0f each taxing unit in whose behalf this in this suit either owned the property that is the subj ect of of the year in which taxes were imposed on said property, or owned or in said property at the time 0f the filing of this suit. on January claimed an interest territorial 1 VI. The Law Firm represented by the attorney Whose name is signed hereto is legally authorized and empowered to institute and prosecute this action on behalf 0f Plaintiff(s). Plaintiff(s) should recover attorney's fees as provided by law for the prosecution of this case, and such attorney's fees should be taxed as costs. VII. Plaintiff(s) may have incurred certain expenses in procuring data and information as t0 name, identity and location 0f necessary parties, and in procuring necessary legal descriptions of the property that is the subject of this suit. Said expenses, if incurred, are reasonable and are shown in “Exhibits A-l through A-l 1” as abstractor's costs, which expenses should be taxed as costs herein. the Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt Page 2 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, served upon each Defendant named P1aintiff(s) requests that citation be issued and commanding them to appear and answer herein in P1aintiff(s) further prays, upon final hearing in this cause, herein, the for time and manner required by law. foreclosure 0f the tax lien on the specific property 0f the defendants described herein, securing the total amount of all delinquent taxes, penalties and interest, including taxes, penalties and interest becoming delinquent during the pendency of this suit, costs 0f court, attorney's fees, abstract fees, and expenses of foreclosure sale. P1aintiff(s) further prays for personal judgment against Defendant(s) Who owned the property on January 1 of the year for Which the taxes were imposed for all taxes, penalties, interest, and costs that are due 0r Will become due 0n the property, together with attorney's fees and abstractor's fees. Plaintiff(s) further prays for: (1) the appropriate order 0f sale requiring the foreclosed property t0 be sold, free and clear of any right, title, or interest owned or held by any named Defendant, at public auction in the manner prescribed by law, and (2) writs of execution, directing the sheriffs and constables for the State of Texas, t0 search out, seize, and sell sufficient property 0f the Defendant(s) against whom personal judgment may be awarded to satisfy the lawful judgment sought herein. Finally, Plaintiff(s) prays for such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which it may show itselfjustly entitled. Respectfully submitted, LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON, LLP 2777 N. Stemmons Freeway Suite 1000 TX 75207 Dallas, (214) 880-0089; (469) 221-5001 —FAX Moreno Lopez Bar N0. 24012989 Pamela Pope Johnson State Bar N0. 108 1 9850 Bridget State Edward Lopez, Jr Bar N0. 12563520 Evelyn Conner Hicks State Bar N0. 09575900 Brandon E. Lane State Bar No. 24039007 State A. Judith State Mark State Guzman Bar N0. 24025972 S. Harris Bar N0. 24050723 Travis J. Cox Bar N0. 24088829 Ashly S. Atkins State Bar N0. 24072364 State dallas.litigati0n@lgbs.com Attorneys for P1aintiff(s) Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt Page 3 of 36 Acct No. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 EXHIBIT 60175630010030000 "A- 1 " NAIL ROAD 4713 1 1: STILL COUNTRY ESTATES BLK INT2016002009716 DD12312015 CO1756300100300 28717563001 Tract LT DC LP W LOVERS LN STE 204 DALLAS, TX 75209-3135 1 3 1719 Nail Rd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: LOT 3 BLOCK 1 OF STILL COUNTRY ESTATES IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS SHOWN BY THE SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2016002009716 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND MORE COMMONLY ADDRESSED AS 1719 NAIL ROAD, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. ABSTRACTOR'S FEE: $350.00 ( Tin Star Litigation Support & Title - “TST” ) DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DALLAS COUNTY ACCT. NO. 60175630010030000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $19.60 $49.38 $68.98 $19.60 $49.54 $69. 14 $19.60 $46.72 $66.32 $20.39 $45.67 $66.06 $20.39 $42.74 $63.13 $21.39 $41.75 $63.14 $21.39 $38.67 $60.06 $22.81 $37.96 $60.77 $22.81 $34.67 $57.48 $22.81 $31.38 $54.19 $24.31 $29.95 $54.26 $17.02 $18.51 $35.53 $17.02 $16.06 $33.08 $17.02 $13.62 $30.64 $17.02 $11.17 $28.19 $17.02 $8.72 $25.74 $8.51 $2.16 $10.67 $328.71 $518.67 $847.38 TOTAL PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010030000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 $25.40 $63.98 $89.38 $25.40 $64.22 $89.62 $25.40 $60.56 $85.96 $25.40 $56.90 $82.30 $25.40 $53.24 $78.64 $25.40 $49.58 $74.98 P Page 4 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65. 10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010030000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010030000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 5 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2015 2016 TOTAL $.70 $.36 $1.06 $.32 $.08 $.40 $10.10 $14.81 $24.91 LANCASTER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010030000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $165.20 $416.14 $581.34 $167.00 $422.18 $589.18 $167.00 $398.13 $565.13 $164.92 $369.42 $534.34 $185.45 $388.70 $574.15 $185.45 $362.00 $547.45 $172.60 $312.06 $484.66 $140.77 $234.24 $375.01 $141.27 $214.73 $356.00 $141.27 $194.38 $335.65 $141.27 $174.04 $315.31 $98.89 $107.59 $206.48 $99.26 $93.70 $192.96 $99.26 $79.41 $178.67 $95.91 $62.92 $158.83 $107.80 $55.20 $163.00 $53.90 $13.66 $67.56 TOTAL $2,327.22 $3,898.50 $6,225.72 TOTAL DUE AS OF MARCH, 2017 TOTAL $3,187.43 $5,251.11 $8,438.54 This suit covers years. Penalty all and delinquent taxes owed 0n interest continue to accrue this property, monthly at P Whether or not itemized herein for all lawful rates. THE ABOVE AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE ANY FEES DUE THE DISTRICT CLERK OF THE COUNTY WHERE THIS SUIT IS FILED. TEXAS LAW MAKES YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF THESE FEES. PLEASE CONTACT THE LAW FIRM FOR THE AMOUNT DUE. THESE FEES MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE SUIT WILL BE DISMISSED. PAYMENT OF COURT COSTS MUST BE IN THE FORM OF A CASHIERS CHECK OR MONEY ORDER. Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt Page 6 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 EXHIBIT 60175630010050000 "A-2" NAIL ROAD 4713 1 STILL COUNTRY ESTATES BLK INT2016002009716 DD12312015 CO1756300100500 28717563001 Tract 2: LT DC LP W LOVERS LN STE 204 DALLAS, TX 75209-3135 1 5 1723 Nail Rd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: LOT 5, BLOCK OF STILL COUNTRY ESTATES IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS SHOWN BY THE SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2016002009716 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND MORE COMMONLY ADDRESSED AS 1723 NAIL ROAD, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. 1 ABSTRACTOR'S FEE: $350.00 ( Tin Star Litigation Support & Title - “TST” ) DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DALLAS COUNTY ACCT. NO. 60175630010050000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $19.60 $49.38 $68.98 $19.60 $49.54 $69. 14 $19.60 $46.72 $66.32 $20.39 $45.67 $66.06 $20.39 $42.74 $63.13 $21.39 $41.75 $63.14 $21.39 $38.67 $60.06 $22.81 $37.96 $60.77 $22.81 $34.67 $57.48 $22.81 $31.38 $54.19 $24.31 $29.95 $54.26 $17.02 $18.51 $35.53 $17.02 $16.06 $33.08 $17.02 $13.62 $30.64 $17.02 $11.17 $28.19 $17.02 $8.72 $25.74 $8.51 $2.16 $10.67 $328.71 $518.67 $847.38 TOTAL PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010050000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 $25.40 $63.98 $89.38 $25.40 $64.22 $89.62 $25.40 $60.56 $85.96 $25.40 $56.90 $82.30 $25.40 $53.24 $78.64 $25.40 $49.58 $74.98 P Page 7 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010050000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010050000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 8 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2015 2016 TOTAL $.70 $.36 $1.06 $.32 $.08 $.40 $10.10 $14.81 $24.91 LANCASTER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60 1 756300 1 0050000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $165.20 $416.14 $581.34 $167.00 $422.18 $589.18 $167.00 $398.13 $565.13 $164.92 $369.42 $534.34 $185.45 $388.70 $574.15 $185.45 $362.00 $547.45 $172.60 $312.06 $484.66 $140.77 $234.24 $375.01 $141.27 $214.73 $356.00 $141.27 $194.38 $335.65 $141.27 $174.04 $315.31 $98.89 $107.59 $206.48 $99.26 $93.70 $192.96 $99.26 $79.41 $178.67 $95.91 $62.92 $158.83 $107.80 $55.20 $163.00 $53.90 $13.66 $67.56 TOTAL $2,327.22 $3,898.50 $6,225.72 TOTAL DUE AS OF MARCH, 2017 TOTAL $3,187.43 $5,251.11 $8,438.54 This suit covers years. Penalty all and delinquent taxes owed 0n interest continue to accrue this property, monthly at P whether 0r not itemized herein for all lawful rates. THE ABOVE AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE ANY FEES DUE THE DISTRICT CLERK OF THE COUNTY WHERE THIS SUIT IS FILED. TEXAS LAW MAKES YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF THESE FEES. PLEASE CONTACT THE LAW FIRM FOR THE AMOUNT DUE. THESE FEES MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE SUIT WILL BE DISMISSED. PAYMENT OF COURT COSTS MUST BE IN THE FORM OF A CASHIERS CHECK OR MONEY ORDER. Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt Page 9 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 EXHIBIT "A-3 " 60175630010080000 NAIL ROAD 4713 1 3: STILL COUNTRY ESTATES BLK INT2016002009716 DD12312015 CO1756300100800 28717563001 Tract LT DC LP W LOVERS LN STE 204 DALLAS, TX 75209-3135 1 8 1729 Nail Rd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: LOT 8 BLOCK OF STILL COUNTRY ESTATES IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS SHOWN BY THE SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2016002009716 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND MORE COMMONLY ADDRESSED AS 1729 NAIL ROAD, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. 1 ABSTRACTOR'S FEE: $350.00 ( Tin Star Litigation Support & Title - “TST” ) DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DALLAS COUNTY ACCT. NO. 60175630010080000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $19.60 $49.38 $68.98 $19.60 $49.54 $69.14 $19.60 $46.72 $66.32 $20.39 $45.67 $66.06 $20.39 $42.74 $63.13 $21.39 $41.75 $63.14 $21.39 $38.67 $60.06 $22.81 $37.96 $60.77 $22.81 $34.67 $57.48 $22.81 $31.38 $54.19 $24.31 $29.95 $54.26 $17.02 $18.51 $35.53 $17.02 $16.06 $33.08 $17.02 $13.62 $30.64 $17.02 $11.17 $28.19 $17.02 $8.72 $25.74 $8.51 $2.16 $10.67 $328.71 $518.67 $847.38 TOTAL PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010080000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 $25.40 $63.98 $89.38 $25.40 $64.22 $89.62 $25.40 $60.56 $85.96 $25.40 $56.90 $82.30 $25.40 $53.24 $78.64 $25.40 $49.58 $74.98 P Page 10 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010080000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010080000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1.25 $.49 $.75 $1.24 $.52 $.72 $1.24 $1.00 $1.23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 11 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2015 2016 TOTAL $.70 $.36 $1.06 $.32 $.08 $.40 $10.10 $14.81 $24.91 LANCASTER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60 1 756300 1 0080000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $165.20 $416.14 $581.34 $167.00 $422.18 $589.18 $167.00 $398.13 $565.13 $164.92 $369.42 $534.34 $185.45 $388.70 $574.15 $185.45 $362.00 $547.45 $172.60 $312.06 $484.66 $140.77 $234.24 $375.01 $141.27 $214.73 $356.00 $141.27 $194.38 $335.65 $141.27 $174.04 $315.31 $98.89 $107.59 $206.48 $99.26 $93.70 $192.96 $99.26 $79.41 $178.67 $95.91 $62.92 $158.83 $107.80 $55.20 $163.00 $53.90 $13.66 $67.56 TOTAL $2,327.22 $3,898.50 $6,225.72 TOTAL DUE AS OF MARCH, 2017 TOTAL $3,187.43 $5,251.11 $8,438.54 This suit covers years. Penalty all and delinquent taxes owed 0n this interest continue to accrue P property, whether 0r not itemized herein for monthly at all lawful rates. THE ABOVE AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE ANY FEES DUE THE DISTRICT CLERK OF THE COUNTY WHERE THIS SUIT IS FILED. TEXAS LAW MAKES YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF THESE FEES. PLEASE CONTACT THE LAW FIRM FOR THE AMOUNT DUE. THESE FEES MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE SUIT WILL BE DISMISSED. PAYMENT OF COURT COSTS MUST BE IN THE FORM OF A CASHIERS CHECK OR MONEY ORDER. Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt Page 12 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 EXHIBIT 60175630010090000 "A-4" NAIL ROAD 4713 1 STILL COUNTRY ESTATES BLK INT2016002009716 DD12312015 CO1756300100900 28717563001 Tract 4: LT DC LP W LOVERS LN STE 204 DALLAS, TX 75209-3135 1 9 1731 Nail Rd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: LOT 9 BLOCK OF STILL COUNTRY ESTATES IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS SHOWN BY THE SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2016002009716 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND MORE COMMONLY ADDRESSED AS 1731 NAIL ROAD, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. 1 ABSTRACTOR'S FEE: $350.00 ( Tin Star Litigation Support & Title - “TST” ) DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DALLAS COUNTY ACCT. NO. 60175630010090000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $19.60 $49.38 $68.98 $19.60 $49.54 $69.14 $19.60 $46.72 $66.32 $20.39 $45.67 $66.06 $20.39 $42.74 $63.13 $21.39 $41.75 $63.14 $21.39 $38.67 $60.06 $22.81 $37.96 $60.77 $22.81 $34.67 $57.48 $22.81 $31.38 $54.19 $24.31 $29.95 $54.26 $17.02 $18.51 $35.53 $17.02 $16.06 $33.08 $17.02 $13.62 $30.64 $17.02 $11.17 $28.19 $17.02 $8.72 $25.74 $8.51 $2.16 $10.67 $328.71 $518.67 $847.38 TOTAL PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010090000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 $25.40 $63.98 $89.38 $25.40 $64.22 $89.62 $25.40 $60.56 $85.96 $25.40 $56.90 $82.30 $25.40 $53.24 $78.64 $25.40 $49.58 $74.98 P Page 13 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010090000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010090000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 14 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2015 2016 TOTAL $.70 $.36 $1.06 $.32 $.08 $.40 $10.10 $14.81 $24.91 LANCASTER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010090000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $165.20 $416.14 $581.34 $167.00 $422.18 $589.18 $167.00 $398.13 $565.13 $164.92 $369.42 $534.34 $185.45 $388.70 $574.15 $185.45 $362.00 $547.45 $172.60 $312.06 $484.66 $140.77 $234.24 $375.01 $141.27 $214.73 $356.00 $141.27 $194.38 $335.65 $141.27 $174.04 $315.31 $98.89 $107.59 $206.48 $99.26 $93.70 $192.96 $99.26 $79.41 $178.67 $95.91 $62.92 $158.83 $107.80 $55.20 $163.00 $53.90 $13.66 $67.56 TOTAL $2,327.22 $3,898.50 $6,225.72 TOTAL DUE AS OF MARCH, 2017 TOTAL $3,187.43 $5,251.11 $8,438.54 This suit covers years. Penalty all and delinquent taxes owed on interest continue to accrue this property, monthly at P whether or not itemized herein for all lawful rates. THE ABOVE AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE ANY FEES DUE THE DISTRICT CLERK OF THE COUNTY WHERE THIS SUIT IS FILED. TEXAS LAW MAKES YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF THESE FEES. PLEASE CONTACT THE LAW FIRM FOR THE AMOUNT DUE. THESE FEES MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE SUIT WILL BE DISMISSED. PAYMENT OF COURT COSTS MUST BE IN THE FORM OF A CASHIERS CHECK OR MONEY ORDER. Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt Page 15 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 EXHIBIT "A-5 " 60175630010100000 NAIL ROAD 1 Tract LP W LOVERS LN STE 204 DALLAS, TX 75209-3135 5: STILL COUNTRY ESTATES BLK 1 DD12312015 CO- LT 10 INT2016002009716 DC 1756300101000 28717563001 4713 1733 Nail Rd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: LOT 10 BLOCK 1 OF STILL COUNTRY ESTATES IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS SHOWN BY THE SPECLAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2016002009716 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND MORE COMMONLY ADDRESSED AS 1733 NAIL ROAD, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. ABSTRACTOR'S FEE: $350.00 ( Tin Star Litigation Support & Title - “TST” ) DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DALLAS COUNTY ACCT. NO. 60175630010100000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $19.60 $49.38 $68.98 $19.60 $49.54 $69.14 $19.60 $46.72 $66.32 $20.39 $45.67 $66.06 $20.39 $42.74 $63.13 $21.39 $41.75 $63.14 $21.39 $38.67 $60.06 $22.81 $37.96 $60.77 $22.81 $34.67 $57.48 $22.81 $31.38 $54.19 $24.31 $29.95 $54.26 $17.02 $18.51 $35.53 $17.02 $16.06 $33.08 $17.02 $13.62 $30.64 $17.02 $11.17 $28.19 $17.02 $8.72 $25.74 $8.51 $2.16 $10.67 $328.71 $518.67 $847.38 TOTAL PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010100000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 $25.40 $63.98 $89.38 $25.40 $64.22 $89.62 $25.40 $60.56 $85.96 $25.40 $56.90 $82.30 $25.40 $53.24 $78.64 $25.40 $49.58 $74.98 P Page 16 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010100000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010100000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 17 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2015 2016 TOTAL $.70 $.36 $1.06 $.32 $.08 $.40 $10.10 $14.81 $24.91 LANCASTER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010100000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $165.20 $416.14 $581.34 $167.00 $422.18 $589.18 $167.00 $398.13 $565.13 $164.92 $369.42 $534.34 $185.45 $388.70 $574.15 $185.45 $362.00 $547.45 $172.60 $312.06 $484.66 $140.77 $234.24 $375.01 $141.27 $214.73 $356.00 $141.27 $194.38 $335.65 $141.27 $174.04 $315.31 $98.89 $107.59 $206.48 $99.26 $93.70 $192.96 $99.26 $79.41 $178.67 $95.91 $62.92 $158.83 $107.80 $55.20 $163.00 $53.90 $13.66 $67.56 TOTAL $2,327.22 $3,898.50 $6,225.72 TOTAL DUE AS OF MARCH, 2017 TOTAL $3,187.43 $5,251.11 $8,438.54 This suit covers years. Penalty all and delinquent taxes owed on interest continue to accrue this property, monthly at P Whether or not itemized herein for all lawful rates. THE ABOVE AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE ANY FEES DUE THE DISTRICT CLERK OF THE COUNTY WHERE THIS SUIT IS FILED. TEXAS LAW MAKES YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF THESE FEES. PLEASE CONTACT THE LAW FIRM FOR THE AMOUNT DUE. THESE FEES MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE SUIT WILL BE DISMISSED. PAYMENT OF COURT COSTS MUST BE IN THE FORM OF A CASHIERS CHECK OR MONEY ORDER. Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt Page 18 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 EXHIBIT 601756300101 10000 "A-6" NAIL ROAD 4713 1 STILL COUNTRY ESTATES BLK 1 INT2016002009716 DD12312015 CO1756300101 100 28717563001 Tract LT DC LP W LOVERS LN STE 204 DALLAS, TX 75209-3135 6: 11 1735 Nail Rd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: LOT 11 BLOCK 1 OF STILL COUNTRY ESTATES IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS SHOWN BY THE SPECLAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2016002009716 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND MORE COMMONLY ADDRESSED AS 1735 NAIL ROAD, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. ABSTRACTOR'S FEE: $350.00 ( Tin Star Litigation Support & Title - “TST” ) DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DALLAS COUNTY ACCT. NO. 601756300101 10000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $19.60 $49.38 $68.98 $19.60 $49.54 $69. 14 $19.60 $46.72 $66.32 $20.39 $45.67 $66.06 $20.39 $42.74 $63.13 $21.39 $41.75 $63.14 $21.39 $38.67 $60.06 $22.81 $37.96 $60.77 $22.81 $34.67 $57.48 $22.81 $31.38 $54.19 $24.31 $29.95 $54.26 $17.02 $18.51 $35.53 $17.02 $16.06 $33.08 $17.02 $13.62 $30.64 $17.02 $11.17 $28.19 $17.02 $8.72 $25.74 $8.51 $2.16 $10.67 $328.71 $518.67 $847.38 TOTAL PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 601756300101 10000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 $25.40 $63.98 $89.38 $25.40 $64.22 $89.62 $25.40 $60.56 $85.96 $25.40 $56.90 $82.30 $25.40 $53.24 $78.64 $25.40 $49.58 $74.98 P Page 19 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 601756300101 10000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 601756300101 10000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 20 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2015 2016 TOTAL $.70 $.36 $1.06 $.32 $.08 $.40 $10.10 $14.81 $24.91 LANCASTER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 601756300101 10000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $165.20 $416.14 $581.34 $167.00 $422.18 $589.18 $167.00 $398.13 $565.13 $164.92 $369.42 $534.34 $185.45 $388.70 $574.15 $185.45 $362.00 $547.45 $172.60 $312.06 $484.66 $140.77 $234.24 $375.01 $141.27 $214.73 $356.00 $141.27 $194.38 $335.65 $141.27 $174.04 $315.31 $98.89 $107.59 $206.48 $99.26 $93.70 $192.96 $99.26 $79.41 $178.67 $95.91 $62.92 $158.83 $107.80 $55.20 $163.00 $53.90 $13.66 $67.56 TOTAL $2,327.22 $3,898.50 $6,225.72 TOTAL DUE AS OF MARCH, 2017 TOTAL $3,187.43 $5,251.11 $8,438.54 This suit covers years. Penalty all and delinquent taxes owed 0n interest continue to accrue this property, monthly at P whether 0r not itemized herein for all lawful rates. THE ABOVE AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE ANY FEES DUE THE DISTRICT CLERK OF THE COUNTY WHERE THIS SUIT IS FILED. TEXAS LAW MAKES YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF THESE FEES. PLEASE CONTACT THE LAW FIRM FOR THE AMOUNT DUE. THESE FEES MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE SUIT WILL BE DISMISSED. PAYMENT OF COURT COSTS MUST BE IN THE FORM OF A CASHIERS CHECK OR MONEY ORDER. Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt Page 21 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 EXHIBIT 60175630010120000 "A-7" NAIL ROAD 4713 1 STILL COUNTRY ESTATES BLK 1 INT2016002009716 DD12312015 CO1756300101200 28717563001 Tract LT DC LP W LOVERS LN STE 204 DALLAS, TX 75209-3135 7: 12 1737 Nail Rd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: LOT 12 BLOCK 1 OF STILL COUNTRY ESTATES IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS SHOWN BY THE SPECLAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2016002009716 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND MORE COMMONLY ADDRESSED AS 1737 NAIL ROAD, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. ABSTRACTOR'S FEE: $350.00 ( Tin Star Litigation Support & Title - “TST” ) DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DALLAS COUNTY ACCT. NO. 60175630010120000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $19.60 $49.38 $68.98 $19.60 $49.54 $69. 14 $19.60 $46.72 $66.32 $20.39 $45.67 $66.06 $20.39 $42.74 $63.13 $21.39 $41.75 $63.14 $21.39 $38.67 $60.06 $22.81 $37.96 $60.77 $22.81 $34.67 $57.48 $22.81 $31.38 $54.19 $24.31 $29.95 $54.26 $17.02 $18.51 $35.53 $17.02 $16.06 $33.08 $17.02 $13.62 $30.64 $17.02 $11.17 $28.19 $17.02 $8.72 $25.74 $8.51 $2.16 $10.67 $328.71 $518.67 $847.38 TOTAL PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010120000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 $25.40 $63.98 $89.38 $25.40 $64.22 $89.62 $25.40 $60.56 $85.96 $25.40 $56.90 $82.30 $25.40 $53.24 $78.64 $25.40 $49.58 $74.98 P Page 22 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010120000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010120000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 23 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2015 2016 TOTAL $.70 $.36 $1.06 $.32 $.08 $.40 $10.10 $14.81 $24.91 LANCASTER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 601756300 10120000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $165.20 $416.14 $581.34 $167.00 $422.18 $589.18 $167.00 $398.13 $565.13 $164.92 $369.42 $534.34 $185.45 $388.70 $574.15 $185.45 $362.00 $547.45 $172.60 $312.06 $484.66 $140.77 $234.24 $375.01 $141.27 $214.73 $356.00 $141.27 $194.38 $335.65 $141.27 $174.04 $315.31 $98.89 $107.59 $206.48 $99.26 $93.70 $192.96 $99.26 $79.41 $178.67 $95.91 $62.92 $158.83 $107.80 $55.20 $163.00 $53.90 $13.66 $67.56 TOTAL $2,327.22 $3,898.50 $6,225.72 TOTAL DUE AS OF MARCH, 2017 TOTAL $3,187.43 $5,251.11 $8,438.54 This suit covers years. Penalty all and delinquent taxes owed on interest continue to accrue this property, monthly at P whether 0r not itemized herein for all lawful rates. THE ABOVE AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE ANY FEES DUE THE DISTRICT CLERK OF THE COUNTY WHERE THIS SUIT IS FILED. TEXAS LAW MAKES YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF THESE FEES. PLEASE CONTACT THE LAW FIRM FOR THE AMOUNT DUE. THESE FEES MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE SUIT WILL BE DISMISSED. PAYMENT OF COURT COSTS MUST BE IN THE FORM OF A CASHIERS CHECK OR MONEY ORDER. Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt Page 24 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 EXHIBIT 60175630010130000 "A-8" NAIL ROAD 4713 1 STILL COUNTRY ESTATES BLK 1 INT2016002009716 DD12312015 CO1756300101300 28717563001 Tract LT DC LP W LOVERS LN STE 204 DALLAS, TX 75209-3135 8: 13 1739 Nail Rd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: LOT 13 BLOCK 1 OF STILL COUNTRY ESTATES IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS SHOWN BY THE SPECLAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2016002009716 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND MORE COMMONLY ADDRESSED AS 1739 NAIL ROAD, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. ABSTRACTOR'S FEE: $350.00 ( Tin Star Litigation Support & Title - “TST” ) DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DALLAS COUNTY ACCT. NO. 60175630010130000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $19.60 $49.38 $68.98 $19.60 $49.54 $69.14 $19.60 $46.72 $66.32 $20.39 $45.67 $66.06 $20.39 $42.74 $63.13 $21.39 $41.75 $63.14 $21.39 $38.67 $60.06 $22.81 $37.96 $60.77 $22.81 $34.67 $57.48 $22.81 $31.38 $54.19 $24.31 $29.95 $54.26 $17.02 $18.51 $35.53 $17.02 $16.06 $33.08 $17.02 $13.62 $30.64 $17.02 $11.17 $28.19 $17.02 $8.72 $25.74 $8.51 $2.16 $10.67 $328.71 $518.67 $847.38 TOTAL PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010130000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 $25.40 $63.98 $89.38 $25.40 $64.22 $89.62 $25.40 $60.56 $85.96 $25.40 $56.90 $82.30 $25.40 $53.24 $78.64 $25.40 $49.58 $74.98 P Page 25 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010130000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010130000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 26 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2015 2016 TOTAL $.70 $.36 $1.06 $.32 $.08 $.40 $10.10 $14.81 $24.91 LANCASTER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010130000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $165.20 $416.14 $581.34 $167.00 $422.18 $589.18 $167.00 $398.13 $565.13 $164.92 $369.42 $534.34 $185.45 $388.70 $574.15 $185.45 $362.00 $547.45 $172.60 $312.06 $484.66 $140.77 $234.24 $375.01 $141.27 $214.73 $356.00 $141.27 $194.38 $335.65 $141.27 $174.04 $315.31 $98.89 $107.59 $206.48 $99.26 $93.70 $192.96 $99.26 $79.41 $178.67 $95.91 $62.92 $158.83 $107.80 $55.20 $163.00 $53.90 $13.66 $67.56 TOTAL $2,327.22 $3,898.50 $6,225.72 TOTAL DUE AS OF MARCH, 2017 TOTAL $3,187.43 $5,251.11 $8,438.54 This suit covers years. Penalty all and delinquent taxes owed on interest continue to accrue this property, monthly at P whether 0r not itemized herein for all lawful rates. THE ABOVE AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE ANY FEES DUE THE DISTRICT CLERK OF THE COUNTY WHERE THIS SUIT IS FILED. TEXAS LAW MAKES YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF THESE FEES. PLEASE CONTACT THE LAW FIRM FOR THE AMOUNT DUE. THESE FEES MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE SUIT WILL BE DISMISSED. PAYMENT OF COURT COSTS MUST BE IN THE FORM OF A CASHIERS CHECK OR MONEY ORDER. Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt Page 27 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 EXHIBIT 60175630010160000 NAIL ROAD 1 "A-9" Tract LP W LOVERS LN STE 204 DALLAS, TX 75209-3135 9: STILL COUNTRY ESTATES BLK 1 DD12312015 CO- LT 16 INT2016002009716 DC 1756300101600 28717563001 4713 1745 Nail Rd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: LOT 16 BLOCK 1 OF STILL COUNTRY ESTATES IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS SHOWN BY THE SPECLAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2016002009716 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND MORE COMMONLY ADDRESSED AS 1745 NAIL ROAD, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. ABSTRACTOR'S FEE: $350.00 ( Tin Star Litigation Support & Title - “TST” ) DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DALLAS COUNTY ACCT. NO. 60175630010160000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $19.60 $49.38 $68.98 $19.60 $49.54 $69. 14 $19.60 $46.72 $66.32 $20.39 $45.67 $66.06 $20.39 $42.74 $63.13 $21.39 $41.75 $63.14 $21.39 $38.67 $60.06 $22.81 $37.96 $60.77 $22.81 $34.67 $57.48 $22.81 $31.38 $54.19 $24.31 $29.95 $54.26 $17.02 $18.51 $35.53 $17.02 $16.06 $33.08 $17.02 $13.62 $30.64 $17.02 $11.17 $28.19 $17.02 $8.72 $25.74 $8.51 $2.16 $10.67 $328.71 $518.67 $847.38 TOTAL PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010160000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 $25.40 $63.98 $89.38 $25.40 $64.22 $89.62 $25.40 $60.56 $85.96 $25.40 $56.90 $82.30 $25.40 $53.24 $78.64 $25.40 $49.58 $74.98 P Page 28 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010160000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010160000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 29 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2015 2016 TOTAL $.70 $.36 $1.06 $.32 $.08 $.40 $10.10 $14.81 $24.91 LANCASTER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010160000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $165.20 $416.14 $581.34 $167.00 $422.18 $589.18 $167.00 $398.13 $565.13 $164.92 $369.42 $534.34 $185.45 $388.70 $574.15 $185.45 $362.00 $547.45 $172.60 $312.06 $484.66 $140.77 $234.24 $375.01 $141.27 $214.73 $356.00 $141.27 $194.38 $335.65 $141.27 $174.04 $315.31 $98.89 $107.59 $206.48 $99.26 $93.70 $192.96 $99.26 $79.41 $178.67 $95.91 $62.92 $158.83 $107.80 $55.20 $163.00 $53.90 $13.66 $67.56 TOTAL $2,327.22 $3,898.50 $6,225.72 TOTAL DUE AS OF MARCH, 2017 TOTAL $3,187.43 $5,251.11 $8,438.54 This suit covers years. Penalty all and delinquent taxes owed on interest continue to accrue this property, monthly at P whether 0r not itemized herein for all lawful rates. THE ABOVE AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE ANY FEES DUE THE DISTRICT CLERK OF THE COUNTY WHERE THIS SUIT IS FILED. TEXAS LAW MAKES YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF THESE FEES. PLEASE CONTACT THE LAW FIRM FOR THE AMOUNT DUE. THESE FEES MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE SUIT WILL BE DISMISSED. PAYMENT OF COURT COSTS MUST BE IN THE FORM OF A CASHIERS CHECK OR MONEY ORDER. Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt Page 3O of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 EXHIBIT "A- 1 0" STILL COUNTRY ESTATES BLK 1LT 17 INT2016002009716 DD12312015 CO-DC 1756300101700 28717563001 60175630010170000 NAIL ROAD 1 Tract 10: LP W LOVERS LN STE 204 DALLAS, TX 75209-3135 4713 1747 Nail Rd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: LOT 17 BLOCK 1 OF STILL COUNTRY ESTATES IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS SHOWN BY THE SPECLAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2016002009716 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND MORE COMMONLY ADDRESSED AS 1747 NAIL ROAD, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. ABSTRACTOR'S FEE: $350.00 ( Tin Star Litigation Support & Title - “TST” ) DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DALLAS COUNTY ACCT. NO. 60175630010170000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $19.60 $49.38 $68.98 $19.60 $49.54 $69.14 $19.60 $46.72 $66.32 $20.39 $45.67 $66.06 $20.39 $42.74 $63.13 $21.39 $41.75 $63.14 $21.39 $38.67 $60.06 $22.81 $37.96 $60.77 $22.81 $34.67 $57.48 $22.81 $31.38 $54.19 $24.31 $29.95 $54.26 $17.02 $18.51 $35.53 $17.02 $16.06 $33.08 $17.02 $13.62 $30.64 $17.02 $11.17 $28.19 $17.02 $8.72 $25.74 $8.51 $2.16 $10.67 $328.71 $518.67 $847.38 TOTAL PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010170000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 $25.40 $63.98 $89.38 $25.40 $64.22 $89.62 $25.40 $60.56 $85.96 $25.40 $56.90 $82.30 $25.40 $53.24 $78.64 $25.40 $49.58 $74.98 P Page 31 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010170000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010170000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 32 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2015 2016 TOTAL $.70 $.36 $1.06 $.32 $.08 $.40 $10.10 $14.81 $24.91 LANCASTER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010170000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $165.20 $416.14 $581.34 $167.00 $422.18 $589.18 $167.00 $398.13 $565.13 $164.92 $369.42 $534.34 $185.45 $388.70 $574.15 $185.45 $362.00 $547.45 $172.60 $312.06 $484.66 $140.77 $234.24 $375.01 $141.27 $214.73 $356.00 $141.27 $194.38 $335.65 $141.27 $174.04 $315.31 $98.89 $107.59 $206.48 $99.26 $93.70 $192.96 $99.26 $79.41 $178.67 $95.91 $62.92 $158.83 $107.80 $55.20 $163.00 $53.90 $13.66 $67.56 TOTAL $2,327.22 $3,898.50 $6,225.72 TOTAL DUE AS OF MARCH, 2017 TOTAL $3,187.43 $5,251.11 $8,438.54 This suit covers years. Penalty all and delinquent taxes owed on interest continue to accrue this property, monthly at P whether 0r not itemized herein for all lawful rates. THE ABOVE AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE ANY FEES DUE THE DISTRICT CLERK OF THE COUNTY WHERE THIS SUIT IS FILED. TEXAS LAW MAKES YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF THESE FEES. PLEASE CONTACT THE LAW FIRM FOR THE AMOUNT DUE. THESE FEES MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE SUIT WILL BE DISMISSED. PAYMENT OF COURT COSTS MUST BE IN THE FORM OF A CASHIERS CHECK OR MONEY ORDER. Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt Page 33 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 EXHIBIT STILL COUNTRY ESTATES BLK 1LT 18 INT2016002009716 DD12312015 CO-DC 1756300101800 28717563001 60175630010180000 NAIL ROAD 1 "A-l 1" Tract 11: LP W LOVERS LN STE 204 DALLAS, TX 75209-3135 4713 1749 Nail Rd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: LOT 18 BLOCK 1 OF STILL COUNTRY ESTATES IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS SHOWN BY THE SPECLAL WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2016002009716 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AND MORE COMMONLY ADDRESSED AS 1749 NAIL ROAD, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. ABSTRACTOR'S FEE: $350.00 ( Tin Star Litigation Support & Title - “TST” ) DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DALLAS COUNTY ACCT. NO. 60175630010180000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $19.60 $49.38 $68.98 $19.60 $49.54 $69. 14 $19.60 $46.72 $66.32 $20.39 $45.67 $66.06 $20.39 $42.74 $63.13 $21.39 $41.75 $63.14 $21.39 $38.67 $60.06 $22.81 $37.96 $60.77 $22.81 $34.67 $57.48 $22.81 $31.38 $54.19 $24.31 $29.95 $54.26 $17.02 $18.51 $35.53 $17.02 $16.06 $33.08 $17.02 $13.62 $30.64 $17.02 $11.17 $28.19 $17.02 $8.72 $25.74 $8.51 $2.16 $10.67 $328.71 $518.67 $847.38 TOTAL PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010180000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 $25.40 $63.98 $89.38 $25.40 $64.22 $89.62 $25.40 $60.56 $85.96 $25.40 $56.90 $82.30 $25.40 $53.24 $78.64 $25.40 $49.58 $74.98 P Page 34 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010180000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010180000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 35 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2015 2016 TOTAL $.70 $.36 $1.06 $.32 $.08 $.40 $10.10 $14.81 $24.91 LANCASTER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 601756300101 80000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $165.20 $416.14 $581.34 $167.00 $422.18 $589.18 $167.00 $398.13 $565.13 $164.92 $369.42 $534.34 $185.45 $388.70 $574.15 $185.45 $362.00 $547.45 $172.60 $312.06 $484.66 $140.77 $234.24 $375.01 $141.27 $214.73 $356.00 $141.27 $194.38 $335.65 $141.27 $174.04 $315.31 $98.89 $107.59 $206.48 $99.26 $93.70 $192.96 $99.26 $79.41 $178.67 $95.91 $62.92 $158.83 $107.80 $55.20 $163.00 $53.90 $13.66 $67.56 TOTAL $2,327.22 $3,898.50 $6,225.72 TOTAL DUE AS OF MARCH, 2017 TOTAL $3,187.43 $5,251.11 $8,438.54 This suit covers years. Penalty all and delinquent taxes owed on interest continue to accrue this property, monthly at P whether 0r not itemized herein for all lawful rates. THE ABOVE AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE ANY FEES DUE THE DISTRICT CLERK OF THE COUNTY WHERE THIS SUIT IS FILED. TEXAS LAW MAKES YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF THESE FEES. PLEASE CONTACT THE LAW FIRM FOR THE AMOUNT DUE. THESE FEES MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE SUIT WILL BE DISMISSED. PAYMENT OF COURT COSTS MUST BE IN THE FORM OF A CASHIERS CHECK OR MONEY ORDER. Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt Page 36 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 CIVIL CASE INFORMATION SHEET TX-1 7-00386 COURT (CLERK USE ONLY): CAUSE NUMBER (CLERK USE 0NL Y): STYLED DALLAS A civil case information sheet must be completed and submitted when health case or JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY. ET AL VS. NAIL ROAD 1 LP, ET AL when an new civil, family law, probate, 0r mental filed in a family law case. The information should be the best available at original petition 0r application is filed t0 initiate a a post-judgnent petition for modification or motion for enforcement is the time of filing. 1. Names of parties Contact information for person completing case information sheet: Name: Bridget Email: Moreno Lopez EAttomey Plaintiff(s)/Petiti0ner(s): dallas.litigation@lgbs.com 2777 N. Stemmons Freeway DTitle IV—D Agency DOther: Defcndant(s)/Respondent(s): 1214) 880-0089 Suite 1000 12141754-7167 Nail Road -FAX 1 LP Additional Parties in Child Support Case: Additional Plaintifl(s)/Petitioner(s) and C‘ty/S‘a‘e/Z‘V State TX 75207 Bar No. 24012989 is: for Plaintiff/Petitioner DPro Se Plaintiff/Petitioner Dallas County Telephone: Address: Dallas Person or entity completing sheet in case: Custodial Parent: Defendant(s)/Respondem(s) on page 2 Non-Custodial Parent: WWfi‘? Signature: 2. Presumed Father: Indicate case type, or identify the most important issue in the case (select only 1): Family Law Civil Contract Injury or Debt/Contract Damage DEminent Domain] DAssault/Battery D Consumer/DTPA D Construction DDebt/Contract DDefamation DPal'titiOIl DFraud/Misrepresentation Malpractice DQuiet Title DOther Debt/Contract: 1707951051473 Condemnation DEnforcement DDeclare Marriage Void DModification%ust0dy DModification—Other DWith Children DAccounting DTrespass Dchal DOther Property: Try DNO Children Title D Other DOther Foreclosure DReciprocals (UIFSA) Support Order D Related to Criminal Matters DFl’anChiSC DMOtOT VChiClE ACCident Dlnsurance DLandlord/Tenant DNon—Competition DPTCmises DExpunction Product Liability D Judgment DOther Product Ugeizure/Forfeiture DOther Injury 0r Dwrit Damage: Law of Habeas DHabeas Corpus Pre-indictment DProtective Order DRemoval DGestational Parenting 0f Disabilities 0f Minority DOther' Other ermmatlon of Parental DAdministrative Appeal DLawyer Discipline DRetaliation DAntitrust/Unfair DPerpetuate Testimony D Competition DGrandparent Access a:atemltflparemage Civil DDiscrimination D Termination Termination DChild Protection DChild Suppofi DCustody or Visitation DName Change Corpusi DOther: Employment Parent—Child Relationship DAdoption/Adoption with Judgment Nisi DN0n_Disclosure Liability Other Family DEnforce Foreign DAsbcstos/Silica List Product: Contract: IV-D DPaternity Professional Liability: DPaItnership Title DEnforcement/Modification DMCdical D Home EQUitY*EXPedited DOther DAnnulment Divorce t0 Post—judgment Actions (non-Title IV-D) Marriage Relationship Real Property Rights Dower Parenpchild: Securities/Stock DWorkers’ Compensation DCode Violations DTonious DOther Employment: DFOIeign Judgment DOther: Interference Dlntellectual Propeny Tax Probate DTax Appraisal ETaX Delinquency Dother Tax 3. Indicate procedure or remedy, DAppeal from Municipal if & Mental Health D Dependent Administration DGuardianshipiAdult DGuardianshipiMinor Dlndependent Administration DMental Health DOther Estate DOther: Probate/VWlls/Intestate Administration Proceedings applicable (may select more than I): 0r Justice Court DPrejudgment Remedy DDeclaratory Judgment Garnishment D DArbitration-related DProtective Order DAttachment DBill 0f Review Dlnterpleader DLicense D DCertiorari DMandamus DTemporary Restraining Order/Injunction g g Turnover _DClass Action 4. Indicate damages sought (do not select if it is a family Post—j udgment $100,000 and non-monetary relief. DOVer $100,000 but not more than $200,000 DOVer $200,000 but not more than $1,000,000 D0ver $1,000,000 Sequestration law case): E Less than $100,000, including damages of any kind, penalties, costs, expenses, pre-judgment DLess than Receiver interest, and attorney fees Additional Plaintiffs: Parkland Hospital District Dallas County Community College District Dallas County School Equalization Fund Lancaster Independent School District Additional Defendants: Steven M. Strong, (In Rem Only for tax years 2000-2006; In Personam Only for tax years 2007-2016) EXHIBIT FILED DALLAS COUNTY 4/7/201 7 2:1 9:48 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK SUIT NO. TX-l7—00386 DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL IN THE DISTRICT COURT 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT VS. @WWWW NAIL ROAD l LP, ET AL DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AFFIDAVIT FOR COST OF ABSTRACT BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a notary public in and for Dallas County, Texas Sandra Daus of Tin Star Litigation Support & Title (“TST”) and affiant, known by me to be the person making this Affidavit, and thereby qualified in all respects t0 make this Affidavit, Who was first by me duly sworn and Who did then under oath state and certify: personally appeared Sandra Daus am over the age of 18 years. I have never been convicted of a felony. I am fully competent to make this Affidavit. I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear that all statements made herein are true and correct and based 0n personal knowledge of each of the facts set forth herein. I, TST has contracted with the law firm of Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, attorneys of record for the Plaintiff(s), to provide the name, identity and location of the necessary parties and in procuring the necessary legal descripti0n(s) 0f the property(s) made the subject of the above numbered and entitled lawsuit. TST reviewed and examined the Dallas County Deed Records and various other sources to provide the requested information. The fee for said service the rates and charges for title above described services is abstracts in is and around the Dallas County $3,850.00. area. The I am familiar with fee charged for the reasonable.” n m I " f Sandra Daus Given under my hand and seal 0f office 0n the 02 day of - Affiant Apr" , 2017. 732%; 4&3Notary Public in and for the State of Texas =-—‘—‘———--I DU." LIMIIH. wEF‘WLJ Slug ‘1."rlnhut. J'rm Jr‘euzs - 1., I Suitkey #2367287 EXHIBIT FILED DALLAS COUNTY 6/7/201 7 12:1 1 :44 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK Cause N0. TX—17-00386 DALLAS COUNTY, et a1, IN § Plaintiffs THE DISTRICT COURT § § vs. 160th § JUDICIAL DISTRICT § NAIL ROAD 1 LP; and § STEVEN M. STRONG, § Defendants DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § NOTICE OF FILING OF DISCOVERY SERVED ON NON-PARTY TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, NAIL ROAD 1, LP, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, and files this Notice of Filing 0f Discovery Served 0n Non-Party, and for cause would respectfully show unto the Court as follows: Nail Road Deposition Duces notice were served 1, LP Tecum files this notice 0f a Subpoena Duces to Sandra upon Sandra WHEREFORE, J. J. Daus attached hereto Daus on June 6, Tecum and Notice of as Exhibit “A.” Said subpoena and 2017. the Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Nail relief requested herein for Oral such other and further relief as it may show Road 1, LP moves itselfjustly entitled. Page 1 for all Respectfully submitted, STRONG LAW, PLLC By: /s/ Steven M Strong Steven M. Strong Texas Bar N0. 19417800 steve@stronglegal.com 11700 Preston Rd, Ste 660-255 Dallas, Texas 75230 214 890 1100 Telephone 214 890-9875 Facsimile Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a copy 0f the foregoing was served upon Plaintiffs’ counsel Harris Via email at Mark.Harris@lgbs.com 0n the 7th day of June, 2017. /s/ Steven Steven M Strong M. Strong Page 2 Mark ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Cause No. TX—17-00386 DALLAS COUNTY, et a1, IN § Plaintiffs THE DISTRICT COURT § § vs. 160th § JUDICIAL DISTRICT § NAIL ROAD LP; and § STEVEN M. STRONG, § 1 Defendants DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § SUBPOENA AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO ANY SHERIFF OR CONSTABLE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS OR OTHER PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SERVE AND EXECUTE SUBPOENAS AS PROVIDED IN TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 176. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO SUMMON, Murphy, 75209, TX 75094, (the “Witness”) to appear 0n June 16, 2017: at Sandra J. Daus, 418 Windy Knoll Dr., 4713 West Lovers Lane, 2nd Floor, Dallas, TX at 1:30 p.m., before a notary public or any other officer authorized by law to administer oath, t0 attend and give testimony at an oral deposition in this case, and to remain in attendance from day to day until lawfully discharged. Additionally, YOU, THE WITNESS, ARE COMMANDED documents and records identified you a part hereof, Which are in your custody and control. t0 said hearing, the This subpoena was issued Steven M. at the request in Exhibit of Nail Road Strong, 11700 Preston Rd., Ste 660-255, Dallas, 1 to produce and bring with A attached hereto and made LP, Whose attorney of record TX, 75230, 214 890 1100. Exhibit SUBPOENA is Page 1 A Contempt. Failure by any person without adequate excuse t0 obey a subpoena served upon that person may be deemed a contempt 0f the court from Which the subpoena is issued 0r a district court in the county in which the subpoena is served, and may be punished by fine 0r confinement, 0r both. Tex. R. Civ. P. 176.8(a). DO NOT FAIL t0 return this writ t0 the 160th District Court, Dallas either the attached officer's return memorandum showing that the ISSUED on June By: /s/ Steven Steven 1, County, Texas, with showing the manner 0f execution 0r the witness's signed witness accepted the subpoena. 2017. M Strong M. Strong Bar No. 19417800 11700 Preston Rd. Suite 660-255 Dallas, Texas 75230 214 890 1100 Telephone 214 890 9875 Facsimile SUBPOENA Page 2 EXHIBIT A 1. A copy of any and all Parkland Hospital current contracts with any and District, of the following; Dallas County, Dallas County Community College District, Dallas County all School Equalization Fund, Lancaster Independent School District (collectively known herein as the “‘Plaintiffs”), and Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLP (“Linebarger”) — relative to parties and (i) title work and (ii) providing name, identity and location of necessary in procuring legal descriptions of property made the subject of this cause (TX 17 00386). 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-l on April in 7, 2017 — With regard to your Affidavit for Cost of Abstract filed in referred to herein as Your Affidavit 0f “Your Affidavit.” With regard cause your statement t0 all such “various other sources” t0 Which you your statement in Your Affidavit of “TST refer. reviewed and examined....”, provide any document or record specifically identifying the individual(s) the specific review and examination t0 4. this “...and various other sources...”, provide any document or record specifically identifying 3. is Which you who performed refer. your statement in Your Affidavit of “...to provide the requested information”, provide any document 0r record containing or evidencing the specific With regard t0 “requested information” to Which you refer. 5. A11 documents and records generated or created by you 0r resulting 6. from the review and examination you in connection With and Your Affidavit. A11 documents and records sent t0 or received from any Plaintiff or Linebarger, relative t0 Your Affidavit 7. refer t0 in TST or the review and examination you refer t0 in Your Affidavit. documents and records evidencing any invoice, billing or payment, t0 or from you 0r TST, relative to Your Affidavit or the review and examination you refer t0 in Your In and all Affidavit. 8. Any document April 9. 7, 2017 and through Any document April 7, 0r record evidencing and identifying the owners or principals of present. 0r record evidencing and identifying the officers and directors of 2017 and through TST on TST on present. original 0f Your Affidavit. 10. The 11. Your driver’s 12. Documents and records evidencing all owners and ownership Litigation Support & Title from inception through present. SUBPOENA license and social security card. interests in Tin Star Page 3 FILED DALLAS COUNTY 4/7/201 7 2:1 9:48 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK SUIT NO. TX-l7—00386 DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL IN THE DISTRICT COURT 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT VS. @WWWW NAIL ROAD l LP, ET AL DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AFFIDAVIT FOR COST OF ABSTRACT BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a notary public in and for Dallas County, Texas Sandra Daus of Tin Star Litigation Support & Title (“TST”) and affiant, known by me to be the person making this Affidavit, and thereby qualified in all respects t0 make this Affidavit, Who was first by me duly sworn and Who did then under oath state and certify: personally appeared Sandra Daus am over the age of 18 years. I have never been convicted of a felony. I am fully competent to make this Affidavit. I am able to swear, as I d0 hereby swear that all statements made herein are true and correct and based 0n personal knowledge of each of the facts set forth herein. I, TST has contracted with the law firm of Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, attorneys 0f record for the Plaintiff(s), to provide the name, identity and location of the necessary parties and in procuring the necessary legal descripti0n(s) 0f the property(s) made the subject of the above numbered and entitled lawsuit. TST reviewed and examined the Dallas County Deed Records and various other sources to provide the requested information. The fee for said service the rates and charges for title above described services is abstracts in is and around the Dallas County $3,850.00. area. The I am familiar with fee charged for the reasonable.” n m I " f Sandra Daus Given under my hand and seal 0f office 0n the 02 day of - Affiant Apr" , 2017. 732%; 4&3Notary Public in and for the State of Texas =-—‘—‘———--I DU." LIMIIH. wEF‘WLJ Slug ‘1."rlnhut. J'rm Jr‘euzs - 1., I Exhibit A—l Suitkey #2367287 Cause N0. TX—17-00386 DALLAS COUNTY, et a1, IN § Plaintiffs THE DISTRICT COURT § § vs. 160th § JUDICIAL DISTRICT § NAIL ROAD 1 LP; and § STEVEN M. STRONG, § Defendants DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § NOTICE OF ORAL DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM Dallas County, Parkland Hospital District, Dallas County T0: Community College County School Equalization Fund, Lancaster Independent School District, by and through their attorney of record Mark Harris, 2777 N. Stemmons Frwy, Ste 1000, District, Dallas Dallas, TX 75207. Please take notice that Defendant Nail Daus (the Road 1, LP, will take the oral deposition of Sandra J. "Deponent") in the above captioned action by oral examination and answer pursuant t0 Rules 199, 203 and continue & 205 ofthe TeX.R.CiV.P. until completed, The deposition and will take place at will begin at 1:30 pm. on June 16, 2017 4713 West Lovers Lane, 2nd Floor, Dallas, TX 75209. The deposition Will resume before a notary public 0r any other officer authorized by law t0 administer oath. The Deponent is required to produce at the time of the deposition, the documents and records identified 0n the Duces Tecum attached hereto. DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION DAUS Page 1 You are further notified that this deposition may be videotaped. Further, Pursuant t0 Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules 0f Civil Procedure, please be advised that the Defendants intend t0 use any and and all trials documents produced by any party in this matter in any and all hearings, depositions of this cause. Respectfully submitted, STRONG LAW, PLLC By: /s/ Steven M Strong Steven M. Strong Texas Bar No. 19417800 11700 Preston Rd., Ste 660-255 Dallas, Texas 75230 214 890 1100 Telephone 214 890-9875 Facsimile ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS Certificate 0f Service hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served upon Harris Via first class mail on the 1“ day 0f June, 2017. I /s/ Steven Steven DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION DAUS Plaintiffs’ counsel Mark M Strong M. Strong Page 2 DUCES TECUM 1. A copy of any and all current contracts With any and all of the following; Dallas County, Parkland Hospital District, Dallas County Community College District, Dallas County School Equalization Fund, Lancaster Independent School District (collectively known herein as the “Plaintiffs”), and Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLP (“Linebarger”) — relative t0 parties and (i) title work and (ii) providing name, identity and location of necessary in procuring legal descriptions of property made the subject 0f this cause (TX 17 00386). 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-l 0n April in 7, 2017 — referred Your Affidavit of With regard to your Affidavit for Cost of Abstract filed in this cause “Your Affidavit.” With regard to your statement “...and various other sources...”, provide any specifically identifying 3. is t0 herein as all such “various other sources” t0 Which you your statement in Your Affidavit 0f “TST document or record refer. reviewed and examined....”, provide any document or record specifically identifying the individua1(s) the specific review and examination t0 4. With regard to Which you who performed refer. your statement in Your Affidavit 0f provide the requested “...t0 information”, provide any document 0r record containing or evidencing the specific “requested information” to which you refer. 5. A11 documents and records generated 0r created resulting 6. by you refer to in 0r TST in connection With and Your Affidavit. A11 documents and records sent t0 or received from any Plaintiff or Linebarger, relative to 7. from the review and examination you Your Affidavit or the review and examination you refer to in Your Affidavit. documents and records evidencing any invoice, billing 0r payment, you 0r TST, relative t0 Your Affidavit or the review and examination you In and all to or from refer to in Your Affidavit. 8. Any document April 9. 7, 2017 and through Any document April 7, or record evidencing and identifying the owners or principals of present. or record evidencing and identifying the officers and directors of 2017 and through TST on present. original 0f Your Affidavit. 10. The 11. Your driver’s license and social security card. Documents and records evidencing all owners and ownership Litigation Support & Title from inception through present. DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION DAUS 12. TST on interests in Tin Star Page 3 EXHIBIT Dallas County, et Nail Road 1 Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong CAUSE NO. 06/16/2017 TX-17-00386 * DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL, IN THE DISTRICT COURT * Plaintiffs, * VS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS * ®OOVOUU‘I-POONA NAIL ROAD STEVEN M. * LP; and 1 * STRONG, * Defendants. 16OTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT **************************************** ORAL DEPOSITION OF SANDRA DAUS JUNE 16, 2017 **************************************** ORAL DEPOSITION OF SANDRA DAUS, produced as a witness at the instance of the Defendant, and duly sworn, NNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA U'l-bCDN—‘OQOOVQU'I-PWN—‘O was taken June in the above—styled and -numbered cause on 16, 2017, Samantha M. from 1:42 p.m. to 5:14 p.m.,, before Blair, CSR No. 8028 in and for the State of Texas, reported by machine shorthand, at the offices at K 1713 West Lovers Lane, 2nd Floor Conference Room, Dallas, Texas 75209, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and any provisions stated on the record or attached hereto. 51 15 STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Road Nail 1 Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong APPEARANCES R. ’IR. mME7§ DOOVQU‘I-thA A ITIKDH 06/1 6/201 7 Page 2 EDWARD LOPEZ MARK HARRIS Blair & Sampson, LLP 777 North Stemmons Freeway uite 1000 )allas, Texas 75207 14) 880-0089 IdwardL@lgbs.com nebarger Goggan COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS DALLAS COUNTY, PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT, DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND, LANCASTER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT MR. STEVEN M. trong Law, STRONG PLLC 1700 Preston Road 660-255 Dallas, Texas 75230 14) 890-1 100 (DU) 'I uite l\) A COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS > LSO PRESENT: Ms. Ashley Brannan #OONAOQOOVOUU‘I-POONAO NNNNNAAAAAAAAAA N O‘l 51 15 STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Nail Road 1 Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 06/1 6/201 7 Page 3 INDEX A SANDRA DAUS: Page EXAMINATION BY MR. STRONG 5 ©OOVOUU‘I-th Signature and Changes Reporter's Certificate 178 180 REQUESTED DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION NONE CERTIFIED QUESTIONS NONE 51 15 STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Nail Road Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 06/1 6/201 7 Page 4 EXHIBITS A No. ©OOVOUU‘I-th 1 Description Page 1 7 Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum 2 Affidavit of Service 8 11 5 Copy of Driver's License 3 Signature Samples 66 4 Affidavit for Cost of Abstract 66 106 6 2016 Texas Franchise Tax Public Information Report for TinStar Title, Inc. 7 Preliminary Title Order Title Tracking 135 142 8 Abstracor Notes Order #61 8586, DCAD Account #601 7563001 0030000 Abstract Packet for CAD Acct # 601 7563001 0030000 9A Abstract Packet for CAD Acct #601 7563001 0050000 QB Abstract Packet for CAD Acct #601 7563001 0080000 9C Abstract Packet for CAD Acct #601 7563001 0090000 9D Abstract Packet for CAD Acct #601 7563001 O1 00000 9E Abstract Packet for CAD Acct #601 7563001 01 10000 9F Abstract Packet for CAD Acct #601 7563001 O1 20000 9G Abstract Packet for CAD Acct #601 7563001 O1 30000 9H Abstract Packet for CAD Acct #601 7563001 O1 60000 9 Abstract Packet for CAD Acct #601 7563001 O1 70000 9J Abstract Packet for CAD Acct #601 7563001 01 80000 1O Texas Secretary of State - Business 9 Organizations Inquiry 11 2015 Texas Franchise Tax Information Report of TinStar 12 2015 Texas Franchise Tax Information Report of TinStar 13 2013 Texas Franchise Tax Information Report of TinStar 14 2013 Texas Franchise Tax Information Report of TinStar 15 2009 Texas Franchise Tax Information Report of TinStar 51 15 Public 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 151 172 Title Inc. Public 174 Title Inc. Public 175 Title Inc. Public 175 Title Inc. Public 176 Title Inc. STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Nail Road 1 Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 06/1 6/201 7 Page 9 t_l‘ A. Yes. Q. Allright. Inlooking atthose12items,are here any categories or any of the numbered items that you did not have any documents A. Yes. Q. Which ones are those? for, at all? LOOONOUU‘l-PwNA A. was do not have Number 1. There's not made between not a contract formally -- there the law firm and myself. Q. Okay. A. You wanted an them Thank you. Any others? All right. electronically, original affidavit, but so it's Okay. Sothatwould be A. That would be said was an submit a copy. Q. -- we my Number2? apologies. It was one you original. Number 10 Q. It's A. Oh. Q. You A. Correct. Q. All right. actually, so... NNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA have Number 10? don't U‘l-PCDNAOQOONOUU‘l-PWNAO Are there any other of the Numbers 1 through 12 that you did not have any documents for? A. Some have any, of the things pertaining to like, real documents. So Q. 51 15 Okay. formal, don't All right. like, TST. don't business-type of drawn have those to produce, either. Anything else? STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Nail Road Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 1 06/16/2017 Page 61 And Q. 3 0t aware since you have been at Carrington, you are any abstractor ever going of County Courthouse A. Correct. Q. All right. to to the Dallas do abstract work? Okay. So now tell me how you became LOOONOUU‘l-PwNA nvolved with doing work A. In s ngle 2007 decided side. In to see mom, make something 2007 decided to see And created started to do work if if -- could, being a else happen for myself. So met with a law firm and them. said "a law firm," you Q. When you A. Linebarger. Q. Okay. Did you know anybody at Linebarger before you tried to A. meet with -- mean Linebarger? them? An excoworker had known TinStar in could do this abstracting on the TinStar, for case, Linebarger and in this not TinStar, at or had worked with Texas Nations Title, used to NNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA work at Linebarger and think went back and kind of kept U‘l-PCDNAOQOONOUU‘l-PWNAO in contact a Q. little bit. Okay. Who was that? Steve Russell. So Steve .>.o_>_0.> Russell worked at Linebarger? Correct. And then you say he left and now he's back? Correct. 51 15 STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Road Nail Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 1 06/16/2017 Page 64 name? Q. Do you know A. No, long time ago. Q. All right. her -- may have asked just strike that. So you met with them the after first time, LOOONOUU‘l-PwNA how did it Were progress? A. Yes. Q. How did A. They were open they open to the idea? progress? it Itwas, We'll give to the idea. you some orders. Here's the product that you do Irt's it? all -- This is how it we file suit. If we pays, then you get paid. ( get paid or If it ve agreed to go ahead and it -- Can want. functions as far as lawsuits. you bring us the abstract and abstract, we does try to not, see we if take the the suit you do if we not. could So make would be something that would be substantial if it enough for us to -- or for me to keep. NNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA Q. Has A. It Q. Have you it been? U‘l-PCDNAOQOONOUU‘l-PWNAO this tn has. work for It has -- them filled its role. so in I'm assuming Yes. Q. And have you been doing A. 51 15 you started 2007? A. ;ide that entire that it continually on the time? Yes. STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Road Nail Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 1 06/16/2017 Page 88 this -- work this for Linebarger? A. Yes. Q. What do you A. Abstract. Q. Okay. Do you A. No. Q. Whenever you had call this call work for Linebarger? anything else? it LOOONOUU‘l-PwNA the initial -- meeting with Ijust strike that. What is your -- what with the Linebarger firm? you paid? is your arrangement How are How much do you When you paid? are get paid? Iget paid not by Linebarger. Iget paid A. through the courts. Linebarger. ( vhile it's know It's I've strictly never received a payment from from the courts. Once from the owner of the property, or if it's -- steps, which a in - don't they got the property, you know, at the is at foreclosure from the City foreclosing NNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA 0n them, U‘l-PCDNAOQOONOUU‘l-PWNAO if they have to pay those fees. that happens. filtered through But of them -- -- most all Once in a while checks are or given to the courts and the courts issue the payments to me. Q. So since you've worked with Linebarger, have you ever been paid by them? A. Never. Q. Okay. Interesting. Isityourtestimonythat 51 15 STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Nail Road 1 Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 06/16/2017 Page 89 all the abstracting work that you have inebarger or from Linebarger hat you have been paid by I—H‘I— in done with every single instance of somebody other than inebarger? A. Correct. Q. And LOOONOUU‘l-PwNA that's always either the courts or the property owner? A. Yes. Q. There's never been anybody else that's paid you other than the courts or the property owner? my A. Not Q. How do to knowledge, no. you get paid from the courts? Explain that process. We get paid A. And gets paid. go through all court fees and through the courts only if the suit the courts then go through, I'm assuming, the fees -- I'm assuming they take those things out and whatever all all the money is NNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA left, if there's enough to U‘l-PCDNAOQOONOUU‘l-PWNAO send us the us the full full pay us the amount. If there's not amount, then they amount, they full enough may send us a to send partial amount. Q. So how did you -- did you have to establish a contact or relationship with the courts for that, the district clerk A. 51 15 or the county clerk or anything? There was just initial setup of, Hey, hello, STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Nail Road Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 1 06/16/2017 Page 93 The payments from — inebarger work, is the clerk from the that a gross or there any is deductions on that? Any deductions, taxes or anything? QOONGU'l-POONA 7? A. Well, afterwards, yes, of course, there Q. But not what you get from the clerks? A. Notwhat getfrom the now Q. of. is. Notthatl clerks, no. don't think so. How would you know not that and who would know that? A. there 11 if 12 reason. 13 Q. 14 don't is know some if whatever money the clerks kind of Okay. As -- if they tax a gross check from the clerk's office, A. Just generally it's 16 Q. Yeah. Okay. How does 18 flhat get to A. By a true? flat fee. that money literally mail you checks? 20 They literally do. 21 And who are the checks To TinStar Litigation made payable Support and to? Title. 23 Okay. 24 They do use TST as short sometimes. 25 So sometimes your checks from 51 15 how does mail. They .0.>_o.>.o.>.o -- you? 19 22 some as you know, you are just getting far 15 17 for it get, the clerks will STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Road Nail 1 Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 06/1 6/201 7 Page 98 t here name t no company created is in the state of of TinStar Litigation Support and Texas by the news Title, that's o you, true? MR. LOPEZ: A. True. Q. (BY MR. Objection, leading. LOOONOUU‘l-PwNA FF do hat this STRONG) work Yes. Q. Do they process now the work right Back on the folks Steve and Miranda? for you, A. All right. all these orders? You currently? Do they do don't really do it yourself? MR. LOPEZ: all Objection, leading. A. Currently they do the abstract. Q. (BY MR. STRONG) -- the abstracts All the work -- all the work -- the orders that you get from Linebarger, those orders, that abstracting work is done by Steve and Miranda, true? NNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA A. Yes. Q. And A. There U‘l-PCDNAOQOONOUU‘l-PWNAO that permanently go in and do has been the case is -- for it can't how say that long, At least in A. Again, can't give amount 51 15 it's how long? been the case because there are times that myself, as well. Q. for of times, the last year. you because it's X amount of cases or X not completely a hundred STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Nail Road 1 Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 06/1 6/201 7 Page 110 A. I'm not sure, no. Q. So how really A. 3 ame could you have formed it if you don't know how they are done? Because was and address, told to sign all some papers and -- that other other type of put stuff. LOOONOUU‘l-PwNA So my understanding was Q. Is TinStar A. it still that was going it to be under me. your testimony that your formed Title, nc.? Yes. Even though Nahum Razo Q. is the one that filed the papers and signed them? A. Yes. Q. So how do you of that to the jury, signed A. -- reconcile you formed how do you make sense but yet it somebody else it? I'm not sure. details that Obviously, don't know some probably have missed. NNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA who formed Q. Like A. Correct. Q. Who owns it? U‘l-PCDNAOQOONOUU‘l-PWNAO TinStar Title, nc.? Who are the shareholders? A. My Q. Anybody else? A. And Q. Anybody else? 51 15 understanding it's me. Steve. STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Road Nail 1 Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 06/16/2017 Page 111 A And . Dan. Q. Dan? A Dan Bryant according Q. Again, I'm not asking you what this paper says. can read to that paper, yes. it. LOOONOUU‘l-PwNA A. Okay. Q. I'm TinStar A. asking your understanding of who owns Title, nc.? It is me, Steve and Dan. Q. Steve Russell? A. Yes. Q. Who is -- the Dan you are getting off of this is Daniel P. Bryant? A. Yes. Q. Who A. Daniel P. Bryant Q. Okay. What is Daniel P. Bryant? is is a friend of Steve Russell. his role in owning a part of NNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA TinStar Title, nc.? U‘l-PCDNAOQOONOUU‘l-PWNAO A. us His role is he does a little bit of work with -- Q. You? A -. some of the packet, yeah. Q. Some A. Yes. Q For Linebarger? 51 15 of your side work? STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Black v. Baker, 130 Tex. 454 (1938) ........................................................................................................................ 15 Boeing C0. v. Paxton, 466 S.W.3d 831 (TeX. 2015) ............................................................................................................. 7 Brown & Gay Eng’g, Inc. v. Olivares, 461 S.W.3d 117 (TeX. 2015) ..................................................................................................... 23, 24 Bull v. U.S. , 295 U.S. 247 (1935) .......................................................................................................................... 1 Celandese Corp. v. Sahagun, N0. 05-16-00868-CV, 2017 City ofHouston WL 3405 186 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 9, 2017, pet. denied) 23 First City, v. 827 S.W.2d 462 (Tex. App.—H0ust0n City ofHouston ......... [1st Dist] 1992, writ denied) 3, 29 ...........................p assim Williams, v. 353 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 201 1) ........................................................................................................... 29 City ofLancaster v. White Rock Commercial, LLC, No. 05-17-00583-CV, 2018 City ofMerkel v. WL 6716932 (TeX. App.—Da11as Dec. 21, 201 8, no pet.) Homoky, 294 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no City pet. filed) ........................................... 17, 18 pet.) ................................................................. 17, 18 v. ofSan Antonio v. Butler, 131 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, pet. City 0f Westworth Village v. denied) ...................................................... 19 City 0f White Settlement, 558 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018) ...................................................................... Dow Chem. 17 Copeland, 561 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. App.—East1and, Oct. 18, 2018, City ofPlano ............... C0. v. 17, 18 Benton, 357 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. 1962) ........................................................................................................... 21 Engelman Irrigation Dist. v. Shields Bros, Ina, 514 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2017) ........................................................................................................... 13 ii Wasson Interest, Ltd. v. City ofJacksonville, 559 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2018) ......................................................................................... 16, 17, 18, Wasson Interests, Ltd v. City ofJacksonville, 489 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. 2016) ............................................................................................... 13, Welch v. 14, 20 28 Milton, 185 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied) ................................................................ 23 STATUTES: TEX. CIV. PRAC. TEX. CiV. Prac. TEX. CONST. TEX. Const. & REM. CODE ANN. & Rem. Code § art. 1, § art. § 101.055 101.021 ..................................................................... .......................................................................... 14, 20, 21 14, 17, 20, 29 3 ........................................................................................................................... 3 XI, § 13 ...................................................................................................................... 14 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 6.30 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 11.01 .............................................................................................................. 3 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 23.12 .............................................................................................................. 5 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 32.01 .............................................................................................................. 4 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 33.07 .............................................................................................................. 7 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 33.41 .............................................................................................................. 4 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 33.43 ....................................................................................................... TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 33.48 ......................................................................................................... 6, 7 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 33.49 ............................................................................................................. 5 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 34.01 ............................................................................................................. 5 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 34.02 TEX. PROP. TAX CODE § 41.66 .......................................................................................................... § 6.30 5, .......................................................................................................... 19 6. ............................................................................................................. Texas Local Government Code Section 271.152 TEXAS PROP. TAX CODE 4, 15 7 5 ............................................................................... 29 .......................................................................................................... 15 V so in the past. A11 of this is pursuant to an alleged “oral contract” that Ms. Daus admits was never formally made. While relevant entitled to for context, the merits are not properly before the Court. Linebarger governmental immunity for its actions acting as the is government in connection With the collection of taxes, one of the types of governmental actions specifically defined by the Texas Tort Claims Act (“TTCA”). This definition supplies immunity Whether the underlying claims sound in tort 0r in contract. Indeed, courts have held they have “no discretion” to consider Whether tax collection activities are “governmental” by immunity. And multiple appellate courts have held to Linebarger and Linebarger is its that governmental and protected immunity applies predecessor firms. indisputably an agent of the taxing entities for the collection of delinquent taxes. It its work in connection With has extra-contractual duties to its clients that arise out 0f the attorney-client relationship that exceed those in the general independent contractor context. For that reason, both the supreme court and multiple appellate courts have applied a different analysis to attorney-agents, because control is a relevant but not conclusive consideration for agency. Moreover, while other courts have found examine Linebarger’s contract County and Dallas County’s establishes immunity in finding it M/WBE policy shows exactly the type 0f control that in even the general contractor context. are explicitly outside the fails essential terms, it unnecessary t0 immune, a review of its contract With Dallas Linebarger’s governmental immunity has not been waived. TinStar also it bounds 0f the waiver to effectuate falls in the waiver—because it is outside the waiver blessed The TTCA. The torts asserted by TinStar “contract” asserted by not written and does not state by the Legislature. its Other provisions also specifically authorize only the taxing authority or agents to take actions to collect delinquent taxes. Id. § attorneys 0r its 23. 1242(n) (penalties shall enforced by “[t]he collector, the collector’s designated agent, or the county or attorney”); § 33.045(a) (setting for requirements for tax bills sent be district by “a taxing unit or an attorney 0r other agent of a taxing unit”); § 34.01 (“authorized agent or attorney” of taxing unit directs the officer to sell foreclosed property); § 41 .66 designated agent” at hearings). and their agents 2. The statutory can exercise these essential What must be done tofile a (“A taxing unit may appear by scheme thus makes clear that only taxing units duties. tax delinquency lawsuit. Prior to filing a lawsuit, the taxing unit must determine the name, identity, and location of each person or entity that has an interest in the underlying real property. Johnson Aff. 1] These individuals or 6. process that entails, entities are identified among other things, records and other public records. Id. through County and is is work” or “abstracting,” a reviewing the deed records, probate records, court This information must be included in a “petition initiating suit to collect a delinquent property tax.” discussed below, Linebarger “title TEX. PROP. TAX CODE contractually obligated t0 perform this expressly provided the right to subcontract its § 33.43(a)(8). As work for Dallas abstracting work, subject to its obligation t0 ensure the competency of its subcontractors. 3. Howfundsflom delinquent tax collection activities are distributed. Because the taxing entity removed. The taxing entity any is is suing in its courts, certain administrative not required to pay court costs to file fees for service of process or electronic filing.” because, upon recovery, the “taxing unit is TEX. PROP. entitled to recover its burdens are lawsuit, “including TAX CODE (1) all § 33.49(a). That usual court costs, is County.” and [is] LNBGR000233. Linebarger is obligated to “provide responsible for locating delinquent taxpayers” function. property LNBGR000234; LNBGR000238. title all necessary address research and may subcontract that necessary Linebarger must “provide or obtain real abstract before filing suit.” Id. Linebarger “shall perform litigation responsibilities and protect County’s papers required for Sheriff’s delinquent taxes. Linebarger is ” sales, legal remedies including appeals, preparation 0f legal post—judgment discovery, and other actions t0 collect the LNB GR000235. obligated to make “progress reports County on request.” LNBGR000236. Linebarger LNBGROOOZSO-S 1. It must ensure all persons is on all phases of this contract to subject to audit “Who perform and inspection services under this rights. Contract be fully qualified and competent to perform the services required.” LNBGR000238; LNBGR000245 legal activity of (emphasis added). The County retains legal control over all the work: “A11 LINEBARGER HEARD may be reviewed by the County District Attorney for his advice or opinion as needed. In case of a dispute concerning a matter of law between LINEBARGER HEARD and the County District Attorney, the opinion of the District Attorney Will be binding. D. The Nail Road 1 On March 2, ” LNBGR000240. litigation. 2017, Linebarger filed suit on behalf of Dallas County and other taxing units against Nail Road 1 LP, et. a1 for non-payment 0f delinquent (Original Pet). That lawsuit included Steven M. “Sandra Daus of Tin Star Litigation Support on personal knowledge of each of the taxes. See EX. A Strong, an attorney, as defendant. Id. & Title (‘TST’)” filed an affidavit “based facts set forth” therein in the EX. B. Ms. Daus claimed a “fee for said service” of $3,850. Id. Nail Road litigation. See Specifications). Indeed, “[a]11 vendors, suppliers, professionals, and contractors doing business or anticipating doing business with Dallas County shall support, encourage, and implement affirmative all citizens steps towards our 0f Dallas County.” TinStar’s common goal of establishing equal opportunity for new ownership structure thus put Linebarger in conflict with Dallas County’s policy. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Strong filed an affidavit in the Nail Road 1 litigation. See EX. G. swore that “Daus testified that He represented in the requested in the Daus Affidavit; fl 6. she did not perform any of the (ii) set or establish the work or services know how the amount(s) for the fees or set or calculated, or What factors amount of fees requested in the Daus Affidavit ....” Linebarger thus had confirmation from an independent third-party that Ms. Daus’s affidavits were subject to attack based Once Linebarger learned credible and she does not Daus Affidavit are/were determined were or are used to Id. (i) and that TinStar risk Violating its that upon her qualifications and competency. Ms. Daus’s affidavits and testimony were was no longer an M/WBE, ethical and contractual it (at best) not refused to continue to submit obligations. Johnson Aff. 11 them 8. E. This litigation. TinStar filed a request for a Rule 202 Petition on January 12, 2018 in Dallas County. See Ex. F 1] 3. Contrary t0 Ms. Daus’s testimony, TinStar alleged continuing contract with Linebarger t0 perform TinStar alleged 4 “when Linebarger would title it “has had a long-term work on behalf 0f Linebarger.” file suit to collect Id. 11 11. on unpaid taxes, Linebarger had Epsz/ /www.dallascoungy.org/Assets/uploads/docs/purchasing/Purchasing—Manual-OCT- 2016-CLEAN.pdf (last Visited Feb. 22, 2019) at Section 17 (emphasis added). 11 B. Actions taken in connection With the collection of taxes are governmental actions by definition entitled to immunity. Governmental immunity governmental unit or agent function. Wasson I, derivative of sovereign is is immunity and 489 S.W.3d at 430. If the function is 438 (quoting But when the function is a “is not defined by the legislature as ‘clear’ task; not necessarily a opinions ‘point out the difficulty in determining Whether a function Id. at when acting pursuant to a governmental, rather than proprietary, governmental, distinguishing between the two governmental.” applies Toolee v. defined by the City ofMexz'a, 197 is multiple proprietary 0r S.W.3d 325, 343 (TeX. legislature, the task is straight-forward. state constitution authorizes the legislature to ‘define for all 2006)). “[O]ur purposes those functions of a municipality that are to be considered governmental and those that are proprietary, including reclassifying a function’s classification assigned under prior statute or law.”’ Id. authority (quoting Tex. Const. art. XI, § 13(a)). Indeed, “the legislature has exercised that by enacting the TTCA, which defines specific functions governmental.” Id. at 438-39 common (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. as proprietary or & REM. CODE § 101.0215). “Such democratic enactments” represent “the Will of the people” and “the Texas judiciary has been [applying them] for more than 130 years.” Id. at 439. These “definitional tools” are “most importantfl .”Id. The Legislature provided definitional tools for this case. There governmental unit.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § have thus long held that the “collection of taxes First City, Inc. v. n0 waiver 0f immunity in connection with the assessment 0r collection of taxes for a claim “arising HMktg. Gm, is Sharp, 951 827 S.W.2d at is 101.055 (emphasis added). Courts undoubtedly a government function.” S & S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, n0 480 (“Tax collections activity 14 by a by a city or a school writ); see also district is a TTCA] had not identified those functions as either governmental or proprietary functions, we would apply a four-part test t0 determine Whether they were governmental, as the Texas Supreme Court did in an opinion issued after submission of our case. [citing Wasson II]. However, “If section 101 .0215 [0f the because the functions expressly covered by the [contract] are expressly identified in section 101.0215 as governmental functions, we do not apply the Wasson II test.. We conclude that these functions are what the Legislature has told us they are: governmental functions.” City ofLancaster v. White Rock Commercial, LLC, N0. 05-17-00583-CV, 2018 6716932, at *4 (TeX. App.— Dallas Dec. 21, 2018, n0 pet.) (emphasis added). . WL “If the governmental action is not expressly listed in section 101 .0215, courts must apply the general definitions of governmental and proprietary functions” and apply a four—part test. (citing Wasson II at 150). “If the City’s actions are listed as a governmental function under the TTCA, we have no discretion, regardless of the City’s motives, to declare the actions as proprietary.” MEN. Com v. City ofCorsz'cana, N0. 10-16-00364—CV, 2018 WL 5986953, App.—Waco Nov. 14, 2018, pet. filed) (emphasis added) (citing City Water Supply at *8 (Tex. ofPlcmo v. Homoky, 294 S.W.3d 809, 814 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no “[I]f an action is pet.)). not expressly mentioned in Section 101 .0215, courts must apply and proprietary functions.” City ofMerkel the general definitions of governmental v. Copeland, 561 (citing S.W.3d 720, 724 (Tex. App.—Eastland, Oct. 18, 2018, pet. filed) Wasson II four—factor “If a function test to evaluate the “general definitions”). TTCA’s nonexclusive list of 36 governmental governmental in nature,’ and [the court] is left With ‘no discretion or authority to hold otherwise.” City of Westworth Village v. City 0f White Settlement, 558 S.W.3d 232, 241-43 (Tex. App.—Fort is included in the functions, the legislature ‘has deemed Worth 2018) it (quoting Tex. Bay Chem) Hill, L.P. City ofFort Worth, 257 S.W.3d App.—Fort 388-89 no Worth (Tex. 2008, 379, pet.)). 12. “may not various aspects of [the defendant’s] operation into discrete functions and recharacterize certain of those functions as proprietary.” Plaintiff LLC v. ‘split Triple BB, (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. N0. 03-17-00149-CV, 2018 2018) (citing Wasson II and then Village ofBrz'arclz'fi 21, governmental function analysis); (quoting City ofPlcmo 815) 17 v. WL 6715272, at *4 strictly applying Homoley, 294 S.W.3d at Here, TinStar is attempting to carve out the litigation services allegedly provided by TinStar from the governmental action of participating in the Moreover, taX-collection litigation itself. It cannot. activities are treated differently than the non—exclusive list of 36 government functions provided in section 101 .0215 and addressed by Wasson II. Indeed, prior cases have focused on section 101 .055 which states the waiver of immunity in the TTAC does not apply to a claim “arising in connection with the assessment 0r collection of taxes by a government unit.” “In connection” governmental immunity does not protect only direct actions taken in litigation, like instituting suit, submitting evidence, or filing pleadings. For example, the San Antonio court 0f appeals District, in Vick App.—San Antonio 505 S.W.3d 24, 30 (Tex. v. Floresvz'lle Independent School 2016), found that governmental immunity protected Linebarger’s alleged action of advising “the governmental units contact Bank of America to seek to repayment of the delinquent taxes.” In other words, the complained-of actions were extra-litigation communications between taxing authorities and third-party lenders that were secured on the property court started With the recognition that waiver of immunity for collection of taxes ANN. tort “ [u]nder the Texas Tort Claims Act, there claims ‘arising by a governmental unit.” § 101 .055(1)). The in foreclosure proceedings. The is Vick no in connection With the assessment or Id. (quoting TEX. CIV. PRAC. alleged discussions With & REM. CODE Bank of America were “taken in the course 0f accomplishing the governmental act delegated to the attorneys by the taxing authorities that enjoy immunity for the very to protect Linebarger from as suit, it same should here. 20 act.” Id. Id. Governmental immunity applied That lawyers are required to exercise professional does not change their status as agents for their typically exercise, control over the that a client lawyer any may defer to its judgment in the exercise 0f their duties clients. “ [C]lients typically have, but do not manner and means of their lawyer’s performance. But lawyer’s expertise in executing certain tasks does not render the less the client’s agent.” Celandese C0179. v. Sahagun, No. 05-16-00868-CV, 2017 WL 3405186, at *4 (Tex. App.—Da11as Aug. 9, 2017, pet. denied), reh’g denied (Nov. 2, 2017). “The question Whether is [the client] had the right to control her manner and means, not whether they chose to exercise that right regarding the final details.” Welch v. S.W.3d Milton, 185 586, 596 (TeX. App.—Da11as 2006, Id. at *5; see also pet. denied) (“the exercise of professional judgment does not necessarily exclude someone from the definition 0f an employee”). And, as discussed in more and contractual means detail below, Dallas County had both the fiduciary to control the details of Linebarger’s For these reasons, each case addressing immunity collection activities has TinStar. examined attorneys GTECH Com v. Steele, filed)—recognize that attorneys are treated The Court for alleged in Brown 8 approach suggested by & Gay Eng’g, Inc. v. Olz'vczres, 461 S.W.3d 549 S.W.3d 768 (TeX. App.—Austin 2018, pet. differently. & Gay “emphasize[d] that the [plaintiffs] were suing Brown & Gay conduct that neither party had attempted t0 attribute t0 the actions or directives of the Authority.” 122-23). for attorneys participating in tax differently that the Even TinStar’s foundational cases--Brown 117 (TeX. 2015) and work. GTECH That posture is v. Steele, 549 S.W.3d at 776 (citing Brown & Gay, 461 S.W.3d at “significant in understanding the analysis that followed.” Here, Linebarger expressly governmental entity. states that TinStar is 23 suing Linebarger for actions by the Id. In Linebarger’s contract With Dallas County provides significant elements of control. Linebarger is obligated to make “progress reports on all phases of this contract to County on request.” LNBGR000236 (emphasis added). Linebarger rights. LNBGROOOZSO-S 1. The County retains activity of is subject to audit and inspection work: “A11 legal legal control over all the LINEBARGER HEARD may be reviewed by the County District Attorney for his advice 0r opinion as needed. In case of a dispute concerning a matter of law between LINEBARGER HEARD and the County District Attorney, the opinion of the District Attorney Will be binding. Driving ” down further, LNBGR000240. the alleged actions of “contracting” With TinStar are also directly Within the scope of Linebarger’s delegated authority. Linebarger necessary address research and [is] responsible for locating delinquent taxpayers” subcontract that necessary function. provide or obtain real property ensure all persons title “Who perform obligated to “provide is LNBGR000234; LNBGR000238. abstract before filing suit.” Id. services under this Contract all and may Linebarger “Will But Linebarger must be fully qualified and competent to perform the services required.” LNBGR000238; LNBGR000245. This last portion is important: When Linebarger received Ms. Daus’s transcript in the Nail Road I litigation and Mr. Strong’s participated in the underlying abstracting work sworn affidavit, it learned she had not t0 in her affidavit. Putting aside ethical concerns, this testimony put Linebarger directly in conflict with obligation to ensure that TinStar required.” was “fully qualified Even if Linebarger “fired” TinStar deposition and competent to its contractual perform the services as TinStar claims, doing so 26 any was directly injury or damage arising out of a condition or use of tangible personal property; injury or damage arising out of a condition or use of real property Sampson Code v. Univ. ofTex., 500 S.W.3d 380, 384 (TeX. 2016); TinStar, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy to commit (3) premises defects). TeX. CiV. Prac. see also § 101 .021. TinStar’s tort claims for tortious interference (zie. and & Rem. With the contractual rights of fraud, and fraud are not within the scope 0f this waiver. TinStar’s breach of contract claims are not Within the scope of any waiver either. Texas Local Government Code Section 271 152 provides . immunity to suit for the for “Waive[r] of sovereign purpose of adjudicating a claim for breach of contract,” and conditions of [that] subchapter.” One 0f those required elements “the contract must be 201 1). Another is that the contract must TinStar has alleged a vague “continuing v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d subject it is to the “terms in writing.” City ofHouston While is that 128, 135 (TeX. “state the essential terms of the agreement.” Id. H H oral” contract that meets neither requirement. This too makes sense; otherwise, a plaintiff could characterize fraud as an oral contract t0 avoid the limited waiver in the TTCA. Thus, the contract claims also fail t0 provide subject matter jurisdiction. H. TinStar’s claims are not “Ripeness is ripe and the court does not have jurisdiction over them. an element of subject—matter jurisdiction.” S.W.Zd 243, 245 (Tex. 1994). Under the ripeness time a lawsuit Gibson, 22 is Bar 0f Tex. v. Gomez, 891 doctrine, [courts] consider whether, at the filed, the facts are sufficiently developed. S.W.3d State ” . . Waco Indep. School Dist. 849, 851-52 (Tex. 2000) (emphasis in original). “A case is v. not ripe When determining Whether the plaintiff has a concrete injury depends on contingent 0r hypothetical facts, or upon events that have not yet 29 come to pass.” Id. at 852. “The courts of CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby was served on all certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument counsel of record in accordance with the Rules 0f Civil Procedure through the Court’s e-filing and service system on February 22, 2019. /s/ Andrew M Howard Andrew M. Howard 32 :rahr. NEH Emmi; LEE! antiwar NnIx—l‘bflflflfifi. problems fm- ttu: the date fifth: taxing units regarding dctcnmncd mat in emi'ml Linebargcr, acting as cuunsel for the taxing any mm, the best iumests 0f its diam: (the taxing units} umuld nut be served gains forward by ufim‘ng. subsequcm can‘t; be based “pan. as, whcflm any 1:th affidavim mind b: ufihcd alter mam. Cnnseqmandy. including Dallas Cflunnr. mated practical. as mfll part. relying. or nthururia: allum'ng any Dams at any Tinfim afidavim." FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGH’I‘. THE STATE DE mm CDUNI'Y 0F DAILAS 1 g HEREBY CERTLFT flu: cm this day. before me. am amen Stau- uf Texas duiy unmanned in me m take acknowledgments, manually appeared PAMELA P. JDHNS-DN, who i5 pcmmally knuwn before a m me and who executed The foregoing Affidavit, acknowledg‘ng me thanh- rnattcn cunnined therein an: mu: amicurren and mthm hermaal knuwladge. M mung; my ham: am atfiml m1 m unis gymfimgma. fix, v I - - tn. 5m Hum Pubhr; 56?:3mfifl My Cflmmminn Emma. Ngfléfi'fiifififim “Himmhpim‘oH HE}: unmvrrurmutu ?.JUHMON _ PAGES II. Claims for filing of this costs suit, all up taxes t0 the becoming delinquent 0n on same, are incorporated in this suit, and is incurred and all interest that any time subsequent all penalties, interest, Plaintiff(s) is further entitled to accrues on all t0 the attorney’s fees, and Plaintiff(s) is entitled to recover the proper proof, without further citation or notice. penalty that said property at day ofjudgment, including same, upon recover each delinquent taxes imposed 0n the property from the date ofjudgment t0 the date 0f sale. III. each separately described property shown in “Exhibits A-l through A-ll”, there are delinquent taxes, penalties, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs justly due, owing and unpaid t0 As t0 and in the amounts shown and made a part hereof by reference for all purposes. Plaintiff(s) for the tax years therein, said exhibit being attached hereto IV. which this suit is brought. The taxes were imposed in the amount(s) stated in “Exhibits A-l through A-l 1” on each separately described property for each year specified and on each person named, if known, Who owned the property 0n January 1 0f the year for Which the tax was imposed. Plaintiff(s) now has and asserts a lien 0n each property described herein t0 secure the payment 0f all taxes, penalties, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs due. Plaintiff(s) affirmatively avers that all things required by law t0 be done have been done properly by the appropriate officials and all conditions precedent have been met. A11 of the taxes were authorized by law and legally imposed in the county in V. A11 of the property described in “Exhibits A-l through A-l 1” was, at the time the taxes were assessed, located Within the suit is brought. this suit A11 Defendants named boundaries 0f each taxing unit in whose behalf this in this suit either owned the property that is the subj ect of of the year in which taxes were imposed on said property, or owned or in said property at the time 0f the filing of this suit. on January claimed an interest territorial 1 VI. The Law Firm represented by the attorney Whose name is signed hereto is legally authorized and empowered to institute and prosecute this action on behalf 0f Plaintiff(s). Plaintiff(s) should recover attorney's fees as provided by law for the prosecution of this case, and such attorney's fees should be taxed as costs. VII. Plaintiff(s) may have incurred certain expenses in procuring data and information as t0 name, identity and location 0f necessary parties, and in procuring necessary legal descriptions of the property that is the subject of this suit. Said expenses, if incurred, are reasonable and are shown in “Exhibits A-l through A-l 1” as abstractor's costs, which expenses should be taxed as costs herein. the Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt Page 2 of 36 Acct N0. 60175630010030000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010100000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010160000, Suitkey# 23 67287 60175630010050000, 60175630010090000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65. 10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010030000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010030000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 5 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010050000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010050000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 8 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010080000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010080000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1.25 $.49 $.75 $1.24 $.52 $.72 $1.24 $1.00 $1.23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 11 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010090000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010090000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 14 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010100000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010100000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 17 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 601756300101 10000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 601756300101 10000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 20 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010120000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010120000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 23 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010130000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010130000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 26 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010160000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010160000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 29 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010170000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010170000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 32 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL $25.40 $45.93 $71 .33 $25.40 $42.27 $67.67 $25.40 $38.61 $64.01 $27.40 $37.70 $65.10 $27.10 $33.39 $60.49 $18.97 $20.64 $39.61 $18.97 $17.91 $36.88 $19.32 $15.46 $34.78 $20.02 $13.14 $33.16 $20.02 $10.26 $30.28 $9.78 $2.48 $12.26 $390.18 $626.27 $1,016.45 DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACCT. NO. 60175630010180000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $5.00 $12.60 $17.60 $6.00 $15.17 $21.17 $6.00 $14.30 $20.30 $7.78 $17.43 $25.21 $8.03 $16.83 $24.86 $8.16 $15.92 $24.08 $8.10 $14.64 $22.74 $8.04 $13.38 $21.42 $8.94 $13.58 $22.52 $9.49 $13.06 $22.55 $9.92 $12.22 $22.14 $6.98 $7.60 $14.58 $8.36 $7.89 $16.25 $8.73 $6.99 $15.72 $8.73 $5.73 $14.46 $8.66 $4.43 $13.09 $4.30 $1.09 $5.39 $131.22 $192.86 $324.08 TOTAL DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND Plaintiff” s Original Petition sdt P ACCT. NO. 60175630010180000 YEAR TAX AMT &I TOTAL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 $.57 $1.43 $2.00 $.55 $1.39 $1.94 $.55 $1.31 $1.86 $.55 $1.24 $1.79 $.55 $1.15 $1.70 $.53 $1.03 $1.56 $.50 $.90 $1.40 $.47 $.78 $1 .25 $.49 $.75 $1 .24 $.52 $.72 $1 .24 $1 .00 $1 .23 $2.23 $.70 $.76 $1.46 $.70 $.66 $1.36 $.70 $.56 $1.26 $.70 $.46 Page 35 of 36 P $1.16 Suitkey# 23 67287 ‘AcctTJO.60175630010030000,60175630010050000, 60175630010080000, 60175630010090000, 60175630010100000, 601756300101 10000, 60175630010120000, 60175630010130000, 60175630010160000, 60175630010170000, 60175630010180000 Additional Plaintiffs: Parkland Hospital District Dallas County Community College District Dallas County School Equalization Fund Lancaster Independent School District Additional Defendants: Steven M. Strong, (In Rem Only for tax years 2000-2006; In Personam Only for tax years 2007-2016) V. Persons Expected to have Adverse Interests 26. Pursuant to Rule TinStar expects the following entities or persons to have interests adverse to TinStar?s in any suit? a. Linebarger Goggan Blair Sampson, LLP 2777 N. Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1000 Dallas, Texas 75207 Phone: 214.880.0089 b. Edward Lopez, Jr., Partner Linebarger Goggan Blair Sampson, LLP 2777 N. Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1000 Dallas, Texas 75207 Phone: 214.880.0089 VI. Rule 202 Claim Deponents 27.TinStar seeks to investigate a potential claim or lawsuit against Linebarger and Edward Lopez.10 28. Under Rule 202(g), TinStar intends to take the depositions of? a. Edward Lopez, Jr., Partner Linebarger Goggan Blair 8 Sampson, LLP 2777 N. Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1000 Dallas, Texas 75207 Phone: 214.880.0089 We explained that ?a section 552 cause of action is available only when information is transferred by an attorney to a known party for a known purpose.? Id. at 794 (emphasis added). Under section 552, a ?known party" is one who falls in a limited class of potentiai claimants, ?for whose benefit and guidance [one] intends to suppiy the information or knows that the recipient intends to suppiy it.? Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts 552(2iiai). This formulation limits liability to situations in which the professional who provides the information is ?aware of the nonciient and intends that the nonciient rely on the information." *0 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.1(b) and Page 10 TinStar, nc.?s Verified Petition Requesting Depositions and Document Discovery to Investigate Potential Claims or Suit ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Cause No. TX—17-00386 DALLAS COUNTY, et a1, IN § Plaintiffs THE DISTRICT COURT § § vs. 160th § JUDICIAL DISTRICT § NAIL ROAD LP; and § STEVEN M. STRONG, § 1 Defendants DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § SUBPOENA AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO ANY SHERIFF OR CONSTABLE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS OR OTHER PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SERVE AND EXECUTE SUBPOENAS AS PROVIDED IN TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 176. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO SUMMON, Murphy, 75209, TX 75094, (the “Witness”) to appear 0n June 16, 2017: at Sandra J. Daus, 418 Windy Knoll Dr., 4713 West Lovers Lane, 2nd Floor, Dallas, TX at 1:30 p.m., before a notary public or any other officer authorized by law to administer oath, t0 attend and give testimony at an oral deposition in this case, and to remain in attendance from day to day until lawfully discharged. Additionally, YOU, THE WITNESS, ARE COMMANDED documents and records identified you a part hereof, Which are in your custody and control. t0 said hearing, the This subpoena was issued Steven M. at the request in Exhibit of Nail Road Strong, 11700 Preston Rd., Ste 660-255, Dallas, 1 to produce and bring with A attached hereto and made LP, Whose attorney of record TX, 75230, 214 890 1100. Exhibit SUBPOENA is Page 1 A FILED DALLAS COUNTY 4/7/201 7 2:1 9:48 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK SUIT NO. TX-l7—00386 DALLAS COUNTY, ET AL IN THE DISTRICT COURT 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT VS. @WWWW NAIL ROAD l LP, ET AL DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AFFIDAVIT FOR COST OF ABSTRACT BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a notary public in and for Dallas County, Texas Sandra Daus of Tin Star Litigation Support & Title (“TST”) and affiant, known by me to be the person making this Affidavit, and thereby qualified in all respects t0 make this Affidavit, Who was first by me duly sworn and Who did then under oath state and certify: personally appeared Sandra Daus am over the age of 18 years. I have never been convicted of a felony. I am fully competent to make this Affidavit. I am able to swear, as I d0 hereby swear that all statements made herein are true and correct and based 0n personal knowledge of each of the facts set forth herein. I, TST has contracted with the law firm of Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, attorneys 0f record for the Plaintiff(s), to provide the name, identity and location of the necessary parties and in procuring the necessary legal descripti0n(s) 0f the property(s) made the subject of the above numbered and entitled lawsuit. TST reviewed and examined the Dallas County Deed Records and various other sources to provide the requested information. The fee for said service the rates and charges for title above described services is abstracts in is and around the Dallas County $3,850.00. area. The I am familiar with fee charged for the reasonable.” n m I " f Sandra Daus Given under my hand and seal 0f office 0n the 02 day of - Affiant Apr" , 2017. 732%; 4&3Notary Public in and for the State of Texas =-—‘—‘———--I DU." LIMIIH. wEF‘WLJ Slug ‘1."rlnhut. J'rm Jr‘euzs - 1., I Exhibit A—l Suitkey #2367287 DUCES TECUM 1. A copy of any and all current contracts With any and all of the following; Dallas County, Parkland Hospital District, Dallas County Community College District, Dallas County School Equalization Fund, Lancaster Independent School District (collectively known herein as the “Plaintiffs”), and Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLP (“Linebarger”) — relative t0 parties and (i) title work and (ii) providing name, identity and location of necessary in procuring legal descriptions of property made the subject 0f this cause (TX 17 00386). 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-l 0n April in 7, 2017 — referred Your Affidavit of With regard to your Affidavit for Cost of Abstract filed in this cause “Your Affidavit.” With regard to your statement “...and various other sources...”, provide any specifically identifying 3. is t0 herein as all such “various other sources” t0 Which you your statement in Your Affidavit 0f “TST document or record refer. reviewed and examined....”, provide any document or record specifically identifying the individua1(s) the specific review and examination t0 4. With regard to Which you who performed refer. your statement in Your Affidavit 0f provide the requested “...t0 information”, provide any document 0r record containing or evidencing the specific “requested information” to which you refer. 5. A11 documents and records generated 0r created resulting 6. by you refer to in 0r TST in connection With and Your Affidavit. A11 documents and records sent t0 or received from any Plaintiff or Linebarger, relative to 7. from the review and examination you Your Affidavit or the review and examination you refer to in Your Affidavit. documents and records evidencing any invoice, billing 0r payment, you 0r TST, relative t0 Your Affidavit or the review and examination you In and all to or from refer to in Your Affidavit. 8. Any document April 9. 7, 2017 and through Any document April 7, or record evidencing and identifying the owners or principals of present. or record evidencing and identifying the officers and directors of 2017 and through TST on present. original 0f Your Affidavit. 10. The 11. Your driver’s license and social security card. Documents and records evidencing all owners and ownership Litigation Support & Title from inception through present. DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION DAUS 12. TST on interests in Tin Star Page 3 Dallas County, et Road Nail 1 Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong APPEARANCES R. ’IR. mME7§ DOOVQU‘I-thA A ITIKDH 06/1 6/201 7 Page 2 EDWARD LOPEZ MARK HARRIS Blair & Sampson, LLP 777 North Stemmons Freeway uite 1000 )allas, Texas 75207 14) 880-0089 IdwardL@lgbs.com nebarger Goggan COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS DALLAS COUNTY, PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT, DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND, LANCASTER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT MR. STEVEN M. trong Law, STRONG PLLC 1700 Preston Road 660-255 Dallas, Texas 75230 14) 890-1 100 (DU) 'I uite l\) A COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS > LSO PRESENT: Ms. Ashley Brannan #OONAOQOOVOUU‘I-POONAO NNNNNAAAAAAAAAA N O‘l 51 15 STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Nail Road 1 Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 06/1 6/201 7 Page 9 t_l‘ A. Yes. Q. Allright. Inlooking atthose12items,are here any categories or any of the numbered items that you did not have any documents A. Yes. Q. Which ones are those? for, at all? LOOONOUU‘l-PwNA A. was do not have Number 1. There's not made between not a contract formally -- there the law firm and myself. Q. Okay. A. You wanted an them Thank you. Any others? All right. electronically, original affidavit, but so it's Okay. Sothatwould be A. That would be said was an submit a copy. Q. -- we my Number2? apologies. It was one you original. Number 10 Q. It's A. Oh. Q. You A. Correct. Q. All right. actually, so... NNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA have Number 10? don't U‘l-PCDNAOQOONOUU‘l-PWNAO Are there any other of the Numbers 1 through 12 that you did not have any documents for? A. Some have any, of the things pertaining to like, real documents. So Q. 51 15 Okay. formal, don't All right. like, TST. don't business-type of drawn have those to produce, either. Anything else? STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Road Nail Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 1 06/16/2017 Page 88 this -- work this for Linebarger? A. Yes. Q. What do you A. Abstract. Q. Okay. Do you A. No. Q. Whenever you had call this call work for Linebarger? anything else? it LOOONOUU‘l-PwNA the initial -- meeting with Ijust strike that. What is your -- what with the Linebarger firm? you paid? is your arrangement How are How much do you When you paid? are get paid? Iget paid not by Linebarger. Iget paid A. through the courts. Linebarger. ( vhile it's know It's I've strictly never received a payment from from the courts. Once from the owner of the property, or if it's -- steps, which a in - don't they got the property, you know, at the is at foreclosure from the City foreclosing NNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA 0n them, U‘l-PCDNAOQOONOUU‘l-PWNAO if they have to pay those fees. that happens. filtered through But of them -- -- most all Once in a while checks are or given to the courts and the courts issue the payments to me. Q. So since you've worked with Linebarger, have you ever been paid by them? A. Never. Q. Okay. Interesting. Isityourtestimonythat 51 15 STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Road Nail 1 Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 06/1 6/201 7 Page 98 t here name t no company created is in the state of of TinStar Litigation Support and Texas by the news Title, that's o you, true? MR. LOPEZ: A. True. Q. (BY MR. Objection, leading. LOOONOUU‘l-PwNA FF do hat this STRONG) work Yes. Q. Do they process now the work right Back on the folks Steve and Miranda? for you, A. All right. all these orders? You currently? Do they do don't really do it yourself? MR. LOPEZ: all Objection, leading. A. Currently they do the abstract. Q. (BY MR. STRONG) -- the abstracts All the work -- all the work -- the orders that you get from Linebarger, those orders, that abstracting work is done by Steve and Miranda, true? NNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA A. Yes. Q. And A. There U‘l-PCDNAOQOONOUU‘l-PWNAO that permanently go in and do has been the case is -- for it can't how say that long, At least in A. Again, can't give amount 51 15 it's how long? been the case because there are times that myself, as well. Q. for of times, the last year. you because it's X amount of cases or X not completely a hundred STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Road Nail Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 1 06/1 6/201 7 Page 112 A. Yes. Q. Why didn't you A. and apologize. mention him awhile ago? have a bad relationship with him don't think of him very often. So you Q. just forget or you -- LOOONOUU‘l-PwNA A. forget. You Q. work on forgot that this stuff Yes. A. somebody -- somebody you had do you forgot about. don't -- again, relationship with him. have a bad don't consider him as a whatever reasons, he doesn't come this other TinStar stuff, Q. Does he get A. He Q. How much does A. the to -- for mind when think of stuff. paid out of TinStar? does. believe the same as he get paid? same as Steve -- he does get paid Steve. NNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA So about 65K a year? U‘l-PCDNAOQOONOUU‘l-PWNAO Yes. .>_o.>.o 5,500 a month? Yes. So who Q. owner is Daniel P. Bryant. of TinStar, Inc. But why is he know -- he's an he's a friend of Steve Russell's, true? A. 51 15 Yes. STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 Dallas County, et Nail Road Sandra Daus al vs. LP and Steven M. Strong 1 06/1 6/201 7 Page 123 I'm not sure. You >9? didn't prepare the affidavit? Correct. The work Q. ITI xhibit 4, that went didn't really you in to the affidavit do marked as yourself, either, did LOOONOUU‘l-PwNA you? A. The abstract? Q. Correct. A. Correct. Stephen or Miranda or Dan, but you don't Q. really A. -- one them did but not you, true? it, True. Who .0.>_0.>.o.>.o of sets the price of The courts. The courts set that? $350 per abstract? Uh-huh. To your understanding? NNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA Yes. U‘l-PCDNAOQOONOUU‘l-PWNAO Do you know what courts and what process that is set by? A. do not. Have you ever seen a Q. the abstracting work A. Q. 51 15 have So is is set at court document that says $350? not. it your -- it's your testimony Linebarger STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321-5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE, SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 181 Dallas County, et Nail Road 1 Sandra Daus al vs. LP; and Steven M. Strong 6/16/2017 EDWARD LOPEZ Counsel for Plaintiffs Dallas County, Parkland Hospital District, Dallas County Community College District, Dallas County School Equalization Fund, Lancaster Independent School District l. MR. 2. MR. MARK HARRIS Counsel for Plaintiffs Dallas County, 3. Parkland Hospital District, Dallas County Community College District, Dallas County School Equalization Fund, Lancaster Independent School District MR. STEVEN M. STRONG Counsel for the Defendants further certify that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties in the action in which this proceeding was taken, and further that I am not financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of the action. I lO 11 12 13 Further certification requirements pursuant to Rule 203 of TRCP will be certified to after they have occurred. 14 agk’ Certif'ed to by me this 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 of kw 120‘! day - gmmk‘fiéhw Samantha M. Blair, Texas CSR No. 8028 CSR Exp: 12/31/18 Firm Reg No. 195 Steven H. Gentry & Associates, Inc. 5115 North Galloway, Suite 202 Mesquite, Texas 75150 Telephone Number: (214) 321—5333 21 22 23 24 25 51 15 STEVEN H. GENTRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. (214) 321.5333 NORTH GALLOWAY AVENUE. SUITE 202, MESQUITE (DALLAS COUNTY) TEXAS 75150 DALLAS CGJNTY NW\BE SPECIFICATIGJS Leffie T. O'awford, Ninority Business Officer Mnority &V\brmn Business Enterprises MESTFORPROPOSALMZOfi-oas-Mfl PAE 20 2. NBEMBE PARTICIPATlm REPGQT PROJECT NUMBER Total PROJECT TITLE Armunt of Your BidIProposal $ (The amount above should equal the List each MBE/WBE total amount as shown on the business that you plan to use on Narm of NBEMBE this initiative. NCTRCA* Certification # bid sheet) Deletion of fims rmst be approved by Dallas County prior tofinalization. *North Central Texas mgional Certifimtion Agency D No NBEMBES Added: S Phone# - [W Descriflion ofV\brk *"S = Sub (contractorloonsultant) Amount “M: Nhterial Supplier Please Explain: COVPLBE 7H8 mmarflfml/IVWHDATA OVYQR COVPANK NANE OF YwR BUSINESS: Pl-U‘Efi ADDRESS: 1—; Printed Name Of Preparer Signature MESTFORPRmOSALNO2011-O36-5427 Title Date PAGE23 Z: All reports and information obtained from individual reports wi be kept confidential as required by Section 709(e) of TITLE MESTFORPRmOSALNO2011-O36-5427 18, Title V . SECTION WILLFULLY FALSE STATEMENTS ON THIS REPORT ARE PUNISHABLE BY LAW, U.S CODE, 1001 PAGE26 FILED DALLAS COUNTY 1/1 2/2018 3:35 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK Angie Avina DC-18-00509 No. TINSTAR TITLE Support and INC. dba TinStar Litigation Title IN § THE DISTRICT COURT OF § Petitioner § § v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § § § LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON, LLP § ' § Respondent _JUD C AL DISTRICT § DBA TINSTAR LITIGATION SUPPORT AND TITLE’S VERIFIED PETITION REQUESTING DEPOSUIONS AND DOCUMENT DISCOVERY T0 INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL CLAIMS OR SUIT TINSTAR TITLE INC. Rule 202 Predicate 1. Texas Rules Under Rule 202 of the may Court for an Order authorizing the taking of depositions on oral petition the of Civil Procedure (“Rule 202”), a person examination or written questions either OWn testimony 0r that of any other person investigate a potential claim or 2. TinStar Title Inc. (a) to dba TinStar for perpetuate or obtain the person’s use in an anticipated suit or (b) to suit.‘ Litigation Support and Title (hereinafter sometimes referred t0 as either “TinStar” or “Petitioner”) files this action to investigate a potential claim or suit 1 Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.1. 2 Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.2(d). by Petitioner against the party outlined below? Page TinStar, lncfs Verified Petition Requesting Depositions Discovery to Investigate Potential Claims or Suit and Document I 1 10. Petitioner asserts that all conditions precedent to performing or maintaining this cause of action have occurred or have been IV. 11. satisfied. Subject Matter and the Petitioner’s Interest Under Rule 202.2(9), TinStar states contract with Linebarger t0 perform that Es be a professional has had a long»term continuing work on behalf of Linebarger. title Linebarger, on information and belief, it an independent contractor collection service representing itself to $10 delinquent tax accounts receivable for billion in Linebarger further publicly holds itself its publicly managing more than public—sector clientele.5 out as a representative 0f hundreds of local taxing jurisdictions in the collection of their delinquent property taxes.6 Linebarger claims t0 have 46 offices to Los Angeles and San Diego, in multiple states from California. One New York, New York of their offices is in Dallas, Texas. 12. TinStar has been the entity since demanded by Linebarger would file suit to collect out of its 2007 handling the massive volume Dallas Office. Procedurally, Linebarger if there work on unpaid taxes, Linebarger had TinStar do a detaiied were lienholders who needed instituting title when Linebarger abstract of the property to ensure that théy had the correct property determine of to be contacted owner and to prior to the foreclosure and potential sheriff’s sale of the property subject to the delinquent taxes. 5 5 See: httpzllwww.lgbs.comlour-servicesl See: httpzllwww.Kgbs.com/our-services/collections/taxes/ Page 4 TinStar, Inc.’s Verified Petition Requesting Depositions Discovery to Investigate Potentia! Claims or Suit and Document b. Harris, SBN 24050723; 24050723; and b. Mark Harris, c. Brandon Lane, Lane, SBN 24039007 c. 18. listed lawyers, lawyers, along along with with potentially potentially other attorneys, met for for approximately 18. The listed other attorneys, approximately hours with with Sandra Daus providing providing her legal advice to testify two hours her legal advice on how to testify and being coached on how to to answer questions asked during her questions that that may be asked during her deposition. deposition. 19.As discussed above, before the meeting that that occurred occurred on on or or about the meeting above, before about June June 15, 15, 2017, Edward Lopez advised Sandra Daus that 2017, that she did did not not need personal need personal counsel. In In addition TinStar's need to investigate the the claim claim for counsel addition to to TinStar’s to investigate negligent for negligent misrepresentation, misrepresentation, and in alternative, Sandra Daus, on the the legal in the the alternative, legal Daus, relying relying on advice provided to her by Edward Lopez, Lopez, attended attended the an advice provided to her by the deposition deposition without without an attorney technically her as as the representative of Star. representing her technicaliy representing attorney the representative of Tin TinStar. undisputed that that an “attorney-client "attorney-client relationship undisputed relationship It It is is also be established established through through may also an implied implied agreement based on words and conduct conduct of parties .... Moreover, of the the parties.... Moreover, ‘an attorney—client courts recognize that that 'an attorney-client relationship relationship can can be be implied implied from from the the courts recognize attorney’s gratuitous attorney's gratuitous rendition rendition of services. Even though of professional professional services. though Edward told Sandra Daus that that he would not represent her at the Lopez told wouid not represent her deposition, the at the the deposition, attorney-client for legal legal advice relationship was formed when she asked for attorney—client relationship advice on whether or or not not she needed an attorney attorney at at the the deposition deposition and he provided provided her her whether with the the advice with advice that that not need an attorney at the the deposition. deposition. she did did not attorney at 20. Here, TinStar intends to investigate whether or or not not Edward Lopez has has either either TinStar intends to investigate 20. Here, committed legal malpractice, or through through his his representation representation to that committed iegal to Sandra Daus that malpractice, or she did did not not need need an attorney attorney at at the whether or not he is is liable for liable for the deposition, or not deposition, whether 7 Page 17 nc.’s Verified Petition Requesting Depositions and Document TinStar, Requesting Depositions Verified Petition TinStar, Inc.'s Potential Claims or Suit Discovery Suit to Investigate Investigate Potential Claims or Discovery to Persons Expected to have Adverse Interests V. 26. Pursuant to Rule 202.2(f), TinStar expects the following entities or persons to have adverse to TinStar’s interests in any suit— Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1000 Linebarger a. 2777 N. Dallas, Texas 75207 Phone: 214.880.0089 Edward Lopez, b. Jr., Partner Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1000 Linebarger 2777 N. Dallas, Texas 75207 Phone: 214.880.0089 Rule 202 Claim VI. & Deponents 27.TinStar seeks to investigate a potential claim or lawsuit against Linebarger and Edward Lopez.” 28. Under Rule 202(9), TinStar intends Edward Lopez, a. Jr., to take the depositions of— Partner Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1000 Linebarger 2777 N. Dallas, Texas 75207 Phone: 214.880.0089 We explained attorney to a “known that “a section known party" is one who when information is transferred by an 794 (emphasis added). Under section 552, a “ class of potentiai claimants, ‘for whose benefit and guidance 552 cause of action party for a known purpose.” falls in a limited is Id. available only at ” [one] intends to suppiy the information or knows that the recipient intends to suppiy it.’ Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552(2)(a)). This formulation limits Iiability to situations in which the professional who provides the information is “aware 0f the nonciient and intends that the nonciient reiy on the information." 7° See Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.1(b) and 202.2(d)(2). Page 10 Requesting Depositions and Document Investigate Potential Claims or Suit TinStar, Inc.’s Verified Petition Discovery to