CAUSENO. DC19-08758
`
`FILED
`2/15/2022 4:02 PM
`FELICIA PITRE
`DISTRICT CLERK
`DALLAS CO., TEXAS
`Darling Tellez DEPUTY
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT
`
`134™ JUDICIAL
`DISTRICT
`
`DALLAS COUNTY,
`TEXAS
`
`§
`§
`
`§§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`THE ESTATE OF JOHN EDWIN
`BRYANT, DECEASED
`Plaintiff
`
`vs
`KIMBERLI FINN FREUND,
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S NO EVIDENCE.
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`NOW COMES,The Estate of John Edwin Bryant, (“Decedent”’), by and through
`
`Rickie Charles Bryant, Joni Ann Bryant Sneed, and John Edwin Bryant, Jr., each and all
`
`of whom are the children of the decedent, are interested persons in the decedent’s estate
`
`pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Estate Code, and are authorized to pursuethis
`
`claim on behalfof the estate of the Decedent, make and file this No Evidence Motion
`
`forPartial Summary and in support show:
`
`I, INTRODUCTION
`
`1. Plaintiff is the Estate of John Edwin Bryantreferred to at times as “Plaintiff” and
`
`at times Decedent and times “Movant”. This claim is brought for and on behalf of
`
`the Estate by and through the children of John Edwin Bryant, Decedent, herein
`
`above named. The children of the Decedent are persons“interested “in The
`
`Estate and are authorized, by law, to bring this action on behalf of The Estate.
`
`The persons herein above named whoare bringing this action for The Estate are
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`1/Page
`
`

`

`each andall heirs of the Decedent and are “interested persons” in The Estate.
`
`They have standing to bring this lawsuit on behalf of The Estate andits heirs, and
`
`to recover property on behalf of The Estate, pursuantto the provisions of Texas
`
`Estate Code, Sec. 22.018(1). See, also, Melvin Houston and Houston Synthesized
`
`Investments, LLC v. Christine Badeaux, No, 14-09-00600-CV, Tex. App.-
`
`Houston [14Dist.] Oct. 10, 2010, no pet. Hist.) (“ifbeneficiary has an interest in
`
`estate property, then the Beneficiary has standing to sue for the recovery of estate
`
`property,” citing Jansen v. Fitzpatrick, 14 S.W. 3d, 426 (Tex. App.- [14Dist.]
`
`2000, no pet)]); Tex. Estates Code Sec. 22.018(1).
`
`2. Defendant is Kimberli Finn Freundreferred at times as “Defendant” and “Freund”
`
`and asserts a General Denial.
`
`Il. BACKGROUND
`
`3.
`
`John Edwin Bryanta/k/a J.E. Bryant is deceased. He died April 13, 2019. At
`
`the time of his death, John Edwin Bryant was seized of land and personal
`
`property, located in Dallas County, Texas. John Edwin Bryant ownedall, or
`
`part, of the real property that is the subject ofthis lawsuit prior to his death.
`
`(See, Special Warranty Deed attached hereto as Exhibit “1” and incorporated
`
`by reference herein for all purposes.)
`
`4. Defendant forged, or caused to be forged, the signature of John Edwin Bryant
`
`on the Revocable Transfer on Death Deed, (hereafter “TOD Deed”) thatis the
`
`subject of this lawsuit. A copy of the forged TOD Deedis attached hereto
`
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`
`2/Page
`
`

`

`as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by reference herein for all purposes.
`
`John
`
`Edwin Bryantdid not sign Exhibit "2". The acknowledgment contained in
`
`Exhibit "2", which states "This instrament was acknowledged before me
`
`on 8 day of February, 2016"is false. JohnEdwin Bryant did not sign Exhibit
`
`"2". John Edwin Bryant did not personally appear before the notary, who
`
`"notarized" the instrument on February 8, 2016, or on any other date.
`
`5.
`
`Additionally, Defendant has moved into the Decedent's home,
`
`taken
`
`possession of all his personal property in the homestead, and threatened
`
`Plaintiffs children with bodily harm, if any of them attempted to enter upon
`
`the Decedent's residence property to inventory property of the Decedent,
`
`6.
`
`Movantseeks partial summary judgment because there is no evidence that the
`
`subject TOD Deed wassigned by the Decedentor that the Decedent’s purported
`
`signature on the TOD Deed was acknowledged before a notary public, as
`
`represented on the instrument. (See, Exhibit 2, TOD Deed).
`
`7.
`
`There is no evidence that the signature of John Edwin Bryant on the subject
`
`TOD Deed is genuine. The only evidence before the Court is that the signature
`
`of John Edwin Bryant on the TOD Deedis a forgery and that the representation
`
`contained on the instrument that the signature of the Decedent on the TOD Deed
`
`was acknowledged before a notary public is false.
`
`8.
`
`This lawsuit was filed June 18, 2019 and has been pending before the Court for
`
`more than two years. Defendant has brought forward no evidence that the
`
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`
`3/Page
`
`

`

`signature of John Edwin Bryant on the TOD Deedis genuine, and the Defendant
`
`has no evidence that the decedent signed the TOD Deedin the presence of a
`
`notary public, as the instrument represents.
`
`9.
`
`The instrument, Exhibit 2,
`
`is a forgery. The signature purporting to be the
`
`decedent’s signature is a forgery. Defendant has no evidencethat the instrument
`is not a forgery. The TOD Deed is void. The property remains the property of
`
`the decedent’s estate.
`
`10. As a matter of law, Plaintiff is entitled to a partial summary judgmentsetting
`
`aside the TOD Deed and declaring same null and void and of no effect, and
`
`ordering that the subject property, which was the Decedent’s home, and all
`
`improvements thereon, therein, and attached thereto, to be disposed of pursuant
`
`to orders of the probate court, in which the administration of the decedent’s estate
`
`is pending.
`
`I. APPLICABLE LAW
`
`A. NO EVIDENCE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`11. A No Evidence Summary Judgment is governed by the provisions of the Tex. R.
`
`Civ. Proc.166a (1), which provides:
`
`Rule 166a (1) No Evidence Motion. After adequate time for discovery, a party without
`
`presenting summary judgment evidence may move for summary judgment on the ground
`
`that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements ofa claim or defense on which
`
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`
`4/Page
`
`

`

`an adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial, The motion must state the
`
`
`
`elements as to which there is no evidence. The court must—grant the motion unless
`
`the respondent produces summaryjudgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material
`
`fact.
`
`12. A no-evidence motion for summary judgmentasserts that there is no evidence of
`
`one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which the adverse party
`
`will rely. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(1); Scripps Tex. Newspapers, L.P. v. Belalcazar, 99
`
`S.W. 3d 829, 840 (Tex. App — Corpus Christi 2003, pet. denied) The motion must
`
`specifically identify the elements of the defense for which there is no evidence.
`
`Meru v. Huerta, 136 §.W. 3d 383, 386 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2004, nopet.).
`
`13. Under rule 166a(1), “[t]he court must grant the [no evidence] motion unless the
`
`respondent produces summary judgmentevidenceraising a genuine issue of
`
`material fact.” “Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (1). See, also, Jackson v. Fiesta Mart, Inc.,
`
`979 S.W.2d 68,70 (Tex. App. — Austin 1998, no pet.).
`
`14. The movant has no burden to attach any evidence to a no evidence motion for
`
`summary judgment. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (1); Ortega v. City Nat’l Bank, 97 S.W.
`
`3d 765, 771 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) The non-movant bears the
`
`entire burden of producing evidence to defeat a no-evidence motion for summary
`judgment. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (1) When the non-movant fails, the “court must
`
`grant the motion.” Zd.
`
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`
`5/Page
`
`

`

`15. To defeat a no evidence motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must
`
`produce evidence of probative force to raise a fact issue “on the material questions
`
`presented.” Jackson, 979 S.W. 2d at 70. To raise a genuine issue of material fact,
`
`the non-movant must bring forth more than a scintilla of probative evidence on the
`
`challenged element. See /d.; see, also, Ortega, 97 S.W.3d at 772. Mere surmise or
`
`conjecture, or conclusory statements do not constitute appropriate, admissible
`
`summary judgment evidence. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a. Where evidence submitted by
`
`the non-movant raises no more than surmise or suspicion of a fact in issue, no
`
`genuine issue of fact exists to defeat summary judgment. Wiggins v. Overstreet,
`
`962 S.W. 2d 198, 200 (Tex. App — Houston [14" Dist.] 1998, pet denied) The non-
`
`movant cannot meet his burden of overcoming the motion for no evidence summary
`
`judgment by submitting no more than surmise or suspicion, conjecture, guess, or
`
`speculation. Guevara v. Ferrer, 247 S.W. 3d 662 (Tex. 200
`
`16. A no-evidence motion for summary judgmentis essentially a motion for a pretrial
`
`directed verdict. See, Mack Trucks, Inc. V. Tamez, 206 S.W. 3d 572,581-82 (Tex.
`
`2004); King Ranch, Inc, v. Chapman. 118 S.W.3d 742, 750-51 (Tex. 2003) A no-
`
`evidence summary judgment is proper when (a) there is a complete absence of
`
`evidence ofa vital fact, (b) the court is barred by rules of law or of evidence from
`
`giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact, (c) the evidence
`
`offered to prove a vital fact is not more than a merescintilla, or (d) the evidence
`
`conclusively establishes the opposite of the vital fact. See Serv. Corp. Int'l v.
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`6/Page
`
`

`

`Guerra, 348 S.W.3d 221, 228 (Tex. 2011)
`
`17. Additionally, in 1997, the no-evidence summary judgment was introduced to the
`
`Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and in 1999, pretrial discovery rules were
`
`amended to include evidentiary exclusions under Rule 193.6. Tex. R. Civ. P.
`
`193.6, See, Fort Brown Villas III Condo. Ass’n v. Gillenwater, 285 S.W. 34,879,
`
`882 (Tex. 2009). The new discovery rules establish a date certain for the
`
`completion of discovery, which dependson the discovery plan level. /d; See, Tex.
`
`R. Civ, P. The “hard deadline” established by the pretrial discovery rules ensures
`
`that the evidence presented at the summary judgment stage and at thetrial stage
`
`remains the same.Jd.
`
`18. Plaintiff's No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted
`
`because Freund does not have a supportable claim or defense and because
`
`Defendant has failed to timely comply with the discovery deadlines.
`
`1. ADEQUATETIME FOR DISCOVERY HAS PASSED
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to a no-evidence summary judgment because Freund
`
`does not have a supportable claim or defense and Defendant has had an
`
`adequate time for discovery.
`
`20. This case has been set for trial four times. Pursuant to Court’s trial notices,
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit “3” and incorporated by reference herein for all
`
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`
`7/Page
`
`

`

`purposes, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure govern the discovery in this
`
`case making the following deadlines applicable:
`
`a. Plaintiff's Designation of Experts:
`
`October 12, 2021
`
`b. Defendant’s Designation of Expert’s:
`
`November 11, 2021
`
`c.
`
`Discovery Deadline:
`
`.
`
`December 11, 2021
`
`21. Plaintiff served Defendant with Request
`
`for Disclosures, Request
`
`for
`
`Admissions and Interrogatories on September 1, 2020, making Defendant’s
`
`responses due on October 1, 2020. Defendant untimely responded to
`
`Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production on October 4, 2020,
`
`waiving all objections to said discovery. Defendant failed to respond to
`
`Plaintiff's Request for Disclosures until December 23, 2021, merely 18 days
`
`before the last trial settng of January 10, 2022. Defendant’s untimely
`
`responses list 17 persons having knowledge of relevant facts, 9 of which
`
`have never been identified in any discovery, and one alleged expert.
`
`Defendant’s designation of experts was due on November 11, 2021.
`
`Defendant designated one expert on December 23, 2021, way beyond the
`
`discovery deadline and the deadline to designate expert witnesses. Plaintiff
`
`has complied with all discovery requests and has produced documents
`
`despite not having been askedto do so,
`
`2. NO EVIDENCE OF SUPPORTABLE CLAIM OR DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`
`8/Page
`
`

`

`(a) Forgery
`
`22.
`
`Under the Texas Penal Code, the term "forge," means: "(A) to alter, make,
`
`complete, execute, or authenticate any writing so that it purports: (I) to be the
`
`act of another who did not authorize that act; (ii) to have been executed at a
`
`time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case; or
`
`(ili) to be a copy of an original when no such original existed ...[.]" Tex.
`
`Penal Code Ann.§ 32.21(a)(1)(A) (West 2016).
`
`23.
`
`To constitute competent summary judgment evidence, affidavits must be made
`
`on personal knowledge, setting forth such facts as would be admissible in
`
`evidence, and must affirmatively show that the affiant is competent to testify
`
`to matters stated therein. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(f}; Rviand Group, Inc. v. Hood,
`
`924 $.W.2d 120, 122 (Tex.1996)
`
`Summary judgment may be based on
`
`uncontroverted evidence if that evidence is clear, positive, direct, free from
`
`contradictions, and could have been readily controverted. TEX. R. CIV. P.
`
`166a (c); Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551,558 (Tex.1989); Montemayorv.
`
`Chapa, 61 $.W.3d 758, 762 (Tex.App.
`
`- Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.)
`
`Affidavits supporting a motion for summary judgment must set forth facts, not
`
`legal conclusions. Brownlee v. Brownlee, 665 S.W.2d 111, 112 (Tex.1984)
`
`(holding that affidavits containing conclusory statements unsupported facts
`
`are not competent summary judgment proof); Larson v. Family Violence &
`
`Sexual Assault Prevention Ctr., 64 S.W.3d 506, 514 n. 6 (Tex. App.-Corpus
`
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`
`9/Page
`
`

`

`Christi 2001, pet. denied) "A conclusory statement is one that does not
`
`provide the underlying facts to support the conclusion." Haynes v. City of
`
`Beaumont, 35 S.W.3d 166, 178 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2000,no pet.)
`
`24. Freund has the burden to prove that the instrument, alleged to be a forgery, is a
`
`genuine instrument, duly signed and acknowledged by the Decedent, John
`
`Edwin Bryant. Ortega v. City Nat'! Bank, 97 S.W.3d 765, 771 (Tex. App.-
`
`Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) (op. on reh'g); non-movant bears the entire
`
`burden of producing evidence to defeat a no-evidence motion for summary
`
`judgment. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a (1)|When the non-movantfails, the "court
`
`must grant the motion." Jd.
`
`25. While the Movant has no burden to produce evidence in a No Evidence
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment, Tex. R. Civ. Proc. 166a (c) allows for
`
`summary judgment based on uncontroverted testimonial evidence of an
`
`interested or expert witnessif the evidenceis clear, positive, and direct,
`
`otherwise credible, and free from contradictions and inconsistencies, and
`
`could have been readily Controverted.
`
`26.
`
`In support of this motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff has attached, as proper
`
`summary judgment evidence, the expert opinions of and Wendy Carlson
`
`(hereafter “Carlson”) and Curt Baggett (hereafter Baggett”). Plaintiff has filed two
`
`(2) separate, independent forensic expert reports ( See, attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`
`10/Page
`
`

`

`°4” | Carlson’s Report, and Exhibit”5”, Baggett’s Report, both of which are
`
`incorporated by reference herein forall purposes), prepared by experts who, based
`
`upon their education, training and experience, hold expertise in the forensic study
`
`of signature, to determine if the signature is that of and by the person whoit
`
`purports and represents to be. The signature purports to be the signature of the
`
`Decedent, John Edwin Bryant. The experts, Carlson and Baggett conclude that
`
`someone, other than the Decedent, signed the TOD Deed. Carlson and Baggett
`
`also conclude that the acknowledgment, representing that the Decedent signed
`
`the DOD Deedin the presence of the notary public is also false, and that the
`
`Decedent did not sign the notary logbook, which represents that Decedent did
`
`acknowledge the instrument before the notary. This is forgery, by definition,
`
`and Defendant has no evidence to dispute this evidence.
`
`27. Additionally, Plaintiff has attached the statement of Justin Closner
`
`(hereafter “Closner’’) who allegedly notarized the TOD Deed which clearly
`
`establishes that the notary signature wasnothis signature, and that the
`
`notary stamp wasalso not his. (See, statement of Closner attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit “6” and incorporated by reference herein for all purposes.).
`
`28. A deed that is forged is a void deed. A true forged signature, however, will
`
`make the instrument - and, equally important, the transaction - transaction void.
`
`Reinagel v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co.
`
`, 735 F.3d 220, 227 (Sth Cir. 2013;
`
`Vazquez v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., NA.
`
`, 441 S.W.3d 783, 785 (Tex.
`
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`
`11/Page
`
`

`

`App.
`
`- Houston [lst Dist.] 2014, no pet.); Worthing v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l
`
`Trust Co., 545 $.W.3d 127 (Tex. App. - El Paso 2017, no pet.).
`
`29. A forged deed is void. Dyson Descendant Corp. v. Sonat Exploration Co., 861
`
`S.W.2d 942,947 (Tex. App.
`
`- Houston [Ist Dist.] 1993, no writ); Morris v.
`
`Wells Fargo Bank, NA., 334 S.W.3d 838,843 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011, no
`
`pet.) A deed that is void may be set aside or cancelled. See, Nobles v.
`
`Marcus, 533 S.W.2d 923, 925 (Tex. 1976) (determining whether deed could
`
`be set aside due to forgery) To constitute a forgery, "the signing must be by one
`
`whopurports to act as another." /d. at 926. Further, the undisputed evidencethat
`
`the signature [initialing] on the notary's logbook was a forgery resolves any
`
`question that the Decedent did not sign the DOD Deed and did not appear
`
`before any notary in the transaction.
`
`(See Carlson and Baggett’s notarized
`
`reports and Closner’s witnessed statement, Exhibit "1,2, and 3").
`
`Such
`
`uncontroverted and undisputed evidence dispels any conclusion that
`
`the
`
`Decedent appeared before the notary public. Stout v. Oliveira, 153 S.W.2d 590,
`
`597-8 (Tex. Civ. App. - El Paso 1941, writ refd w.o.m).
`
`30. The TOD Deedandthe transaction it attempts to fraudulently create, by which,
`
`if it had not been challenged, would seize Decedent's home. The deed and the
`
`transaction are void, as a matter of law, and Defendant has no evidence to the
`
`contrary.
`
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`
`12/Page
`
`

`

`31. As shownherein above, there is no evidence, and Defendant has no evidence,
`
`to support hertitle inand to the property described in the TOD Deed. Reinagelv.
`
`Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 735 F.3d 220, 227 (Sth Cir. 2013; Vazquez v.
`
`Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., NA., 441 S.W.3d 783, 785 (Tex. App.
`
`-
`
`Houston [Ist Dist.] 2014, no pet.); Worthing v. Deutsche Bank Nat’ Trust Co.,
`
`545 S$.W.3d 127 (Tex. App. El Paso 2017, no pet). For the reasons herein
`
`stated, without dispute, and as a matter of law, Defendant has no evidence:
`
`>
`
`»
`
`>»
`
`to support any claim that the TOD Deedis valid, and not a forgery;
`
`to support Defendant's claim to title in and to the Decedent's real property,
`
`based upon the transaction evidenced by the TOD Deed; nor
`
`to support Defendant claim to any title interest
`
`in and to the property
`
`attempted to be conveyed in the TOD Deed.
`
`32. There is no evidence and Defendant has no evidence because there is no
`
`evidence that the TOD Deed is genuine; that the TOD deed is not a
`
`forgery;
`
`that the decedent did, in fact, sign the TOD deed, and that
`
`Decedent's signing of the instrument was acknowledged and as the
`
`instrument represents.
`
`33. Simply put, Defendant has no evidencethat the TOD deed, attempting to
`
`transfer the Decedent's estate to Defendant is genuine and not a void, forged
`
`instrument, attempting to take and claim the Decedent's home from him.
`
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`
`13/Page
`
`

`

`(b.) Trespass to Try Title
`
`34. Plaintiff incorporates Sections | through 29 herein.
`
`35. This is trespass to try title case under Chapter 22 of the Texas Property
`
`Code.
`
`Sec. 22.001(a.) provides: A trespass to try title action is the
`
`method of determiningtitle to lands, tenements, or other real property.
`
`36. The property in question is described in Exhibit 1. The interest claimed by
`
`Plaintiff, The Estate, is fee simple.
`
`37. Plaintiff was the owner and was in possession of the property when
`
`Defendant, Freund wrongfully and unlawfully entered upon the property
`
`and dispossessed The Estate of the premises. Defendant Freundtooktitle
`
`and possession on or about February 8, 2019, and withheld, and continues
`
`to withhold the property from Plaintiff.
`
`38. For the reasons stated herein, the subject TOD Deed, through which
`
`Defendant Freund claims possession andtitle, is void.
`
`39. Alternatively, the TOD Deed Exhibit 2 is voidable and should beset
`
`aside for naught.
`
`Ill. DAMAGES
`
`40. The fair rental market value of the property is approximately $858.00 per
`
`month. (See, Zillow’s Estimated Rent attached hereto as Exhibit “7” and
`
`incorporated by reference herein for all purposes.). Plaintiff is entitled
`
`to recover from Defendant rent at such rate from and after April 13,
`
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`
`14/{Page
`
`

`

`2019, the date Defendant unlawfully took possession of the property.
`
`Plaintiff requests that Defendant pay the rent on the property.
`
`41. Plaintiff further seeks exemplary damages. The damages for Plaintiff's
`
`cause of action are unliquidated.
`
`<A plaintiff moving for summary
`
`judgment on its cause of action is not required to prove the amountof
`
`unliquidated damage, only those damages were incurred. See Tex. R.
`
`Civ. P. 166(a); Pinnacle Anesthesia Consultants, P.A. v. Fisher, 309
`
`S.W.3d 93, 100 (Tex. App.- Dallas 2009, pet. Denied). Because
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on liability and Plaintiff
`
`proved the existence of damages, the Court should grant Plaintiff a
`
`summary judgment onliability and set the issue of damages fortrial.
`
`See, City of Houston v. Socony Mobil Co., 421 S.W.2d 427, 429-30
`
`(Tex. App.- Houston [[1* Dist.] 1967, writ ref’d n.t.e.), (after court
`
`rendered partial summary judgment,
`
`issue of damages was tried to
`
`jury).
`
`V. PRAYER
`
`WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED,Plaintiff ask the Court to grant
`
`this motion and sign an order for partial summary judgment. In the alternative, Plaintiff
`
`asks for an order specifying the facts that are established as a matter of law, and for
`
`furtherrelief at law or in equity to whichPlaintiff be justly entitled.
`
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`
`15/Page
`
`

`

`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WYDE & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
`10100 N. Central Expy, Ste 230
`Dallas, Texas 75231
`Tel No: (214) 521-9100
`
`By: /s/ Dan L. Wyde
`Daniel L.Wyde
`Texas Bar No. 22095500
`Email: wydelaw@gmail.com
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`THE ESTATE OF JOHN
`EDWARD BRYANT, DECEDENT
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing pleading was
`served upon Kimberli Freund on January
`, V.2022, via CM RRR and
`electronic filing manager.
`
`/s/ Dan L. Wyde
`Dan L. Wyde
`
`Plaintiff's Motion for No Evidence Partial Summary Judgment
`
`16/Page
`
`

`

`20 rrena,SEIa atpeseer ann —
`
`NexanalpaTulseReaaTARNRRS ee ESSe reeepeeee AaaSee SATPR
`
`aae
`
`
`SPECIAL WARRANTYDEED
`HCEA
`
`NOVICE OF CONFIDENTIALITYRIGHTS: IF YOU ARE A
`NATURAL PERSON, YOU MAY REMOVE OR STRIKE ANYOR
`ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROMTHIS
`INSTRUMENT BEFOREIT IS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE
`PUBLIC RECORDS: YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR
`YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSE NUMBER.
`
`
`
`mie R202 HY- Wa uocy
`
`Grantor:
`
`ANNIE LORAINE BRYANT
`
`a
`
`at
`Grantor’s Mailing Address: 2501 AVENUE A, GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS,75051
`
`Grantee:
`
`JOHN EDWIN BRYANT
`
`Grantee’s Mailing Address: 2501 AVENUE A, GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS 75031
`
`Consideration: TEN AND NO/100 -----($10.00)---- DOLLARSandother good and
`valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged and coufessed;
`
`Property (including any improvements):
`
`BEING A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING
`MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS ON EXHIBT“4”
`ATTACHED HERETO AND MADEA PART HEREOF FOR ALL PURPOSES.
`
`Reservations frou: and Exceptions te Conveyance and Warranty:
`
`%
`THIS CONVEYANCE IS EXECUTED, DELIVERED AND ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO AD
`VALOREM TAXES FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, ROLLBACK TAXES DUE TO THIS
`CONVEYANCE OR GRANTEE’S USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. MAINTENANCE
`FUND LIENS, ZONING ORDINANCES, ULTILITY DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS AND
`STANDBYFEES, IF ANY, ANY AND ALL VALID UTILITY EASEMENTS CREATED BY
`THE DEDICATION DEED OR PLAT OF THE SUBDIVISION IN WHICH SAID REAL
`PROPERTYIS LOCATED, RECORDED EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS, MINERAL
`RESERVATIONS AND LEASES, RESTRICTIONS, CONVENANTS, CONDITIONS,
`RIGHTS OF WAY EASEMENTS, IF ANY, AFFECTING THE HEREIN DESCRIBED
`PROPERTY.
`
`Grantor, for the consideration and subjectto the reservations from and exceptions to
`conveyance and warranty, grants, selis, and conveys io Grantee the property, together
`with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in any wise belonging,to have
`and holdit to Grantee, Grantee’s heirs, executors, administrators, successors, orassigns
`forever. Grantor hereby binds Grantor and Granior’s heirs, executors, administrators, and
`successors tc warrant and forever defend all and singular the property to Grantge and
`Graniee’s heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, against every person
`whomsoever lawfuily claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof, except as to the
`reservations from and exceptions to warranty, when the claim is by, through, or under
`Grantor, but not otherwise.
`
`EXHIBIT
`1tavoles:
`
`

`

`When the context requires, singular nouns and pronouns include the plural.
`
`This instrument was prepared based on information furnished by the parties, and
`no independent title search has been made.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)=>KEI)©Lo Por+fofBaw72 le¥orsnL
`“Ghbeilt Fi Freund, POA for‘Annie LoraineeBryany
`B ¥ Ueedate
`
`wd
`
`STATE OF TEXAS
`
`}
`
`COUNTYOF DALLAS
`dph Pr,
`Ww:
`his
`i
`at
`This instrument was acknowledged before me on. be. ff:
`2012, by Kimberli Freund, POA for Annie LorainePryant.
`
`}
`
`os
`
`i
`_
`~
`.
`
`Notaly Public, State of Texas
`
`_
`
`AFTER RECORDING RETURNTO: Pr
`
`
`sote,
`dustin Kevin Closner
`|?
`
`Notary Fubtic, State of Texas
`a RS
`My Cominission Expires
`|i
`
`fat vee
`ntee!
`‘te
`ADM 24, 2018
`if
`panne
`
`John Edwin Bryant
`2501 Avenue A
`Grand Prairie, TX 75051
`
`Special Warranty Deed, Page 2
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT“A”
`
`Bagi. ali of @ teact of land 100% 300 fast, Beginning 100 fce
`Seuwthof the Northwastcorner of a certain tractof ‘Land ‘daseribed in | the ap.
`Records of Balkas Gounty,:' Texas, recovded in Vol. page 3875 eaid Northwes} corner
`being the intersection eof Wilson Street and Armstead. Averus;
`.
`THENCE Hast 560 feet with the Sewth Line of Phileqsean. Hassnex, tract for a corner
`.
`THINGE Semwth parallel with Badisosd Street “100, feat for a comer;
`THENCE West parallel with Poilemean Heesnar Sowkh line 360 fast to a poit 4for corner;
`THSNCER Worth with the East Tise of Wileen Street 160. feet to tne Flase of Begioning«
`and being the sama each of Lard am sat owk and, descrihed in a deed dated pot, 32,
`4932 fvum @.H. Towner et al to Phillesaen Heesnar, and shown recorded in Vol. 1789
`page 4hS of the Deed Recnrda of Dallas County, Terass
`-
`SAVE 2D EXCEPT anyportion of -wala.&tracts. of dana heretofore. Sonveyel for sight of
`way, and/or read way purposes, and
`
`Reing the saus tracts of Land this day conveyed to Grantors haveby deed. a! even
`date herewith fran Bill dg. Stephens, Independent Execater cf the Estate -f
`Puiiomean
`Mary Raesner, Deceesad;
`y
`
`Filed and Recorded
`tal Publis Records
`grfic
`warren, GOUNLY
`gohn fF.
`TEXAS
`Haiias County:
`56 PH
`tQiZSlZOr2 02.08:
`$24.20
`
`Clerk
`
`291200319945
`
`%
`
`

`

`Sr
`
`REVOCABLE TRANSFER ON DEATH DEED
`
`NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY RIGHTS;IF YOU ARE A NATURALPERSON, YOU
`MAY REMOVEORSTRIKEANY OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM THIS
`INSTRUMENT BEFOREIT IS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS:
`YOURSOCIAL SECURITY NUMBEROR YOUR DRIVER'SLICENSE NUMBER.
`
`DATE:
`
`February 8, 2019
`
`TRANSFEROR:John. Edwin Bryant
`TRANSFEROR’S MAILING ADDRESS:
`2501 Ave A Grand Prairie, TX 75051
`
`PROPERTY ADDRESS:
`2501 Ave A,Grand Prairie, TX 75051, Dallas County
`
`LEGAL DESCRIPTIONOFPROPERTY:
`See Exhibit “A”attached hereto and made a part hereof forall purposes.
`PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES (TRANSFEREES)ifthe beneficiary survives me:
`Kimberli Finn Freund
`
`TRANSFEREE’S MAILING ADDRESS:
`KimberliFinn Freund
`2501 Ave A
`GrandPrairie, TX 75051
`
`ALTERNATE BENEFICIARY (TRANSFEREE)ifnoprimary beneficiary survives me:
`Joni Ann Sneed
`1271 Sawsawi Trail
`.
`Desoto, TX 75115
`ghey GUURP
`ie ot es ab
`TeresaLouiseFinn LaPlace
`sav «he \@3
`4103CoryLee Ct
`{Vinee ie
`Arlington,TX 76015
`oo RANUSF
`:
`ek wy Ee
`,
`REVOCABLETRANSFERONDEATHDEED
`=A, esseateg PAGE 1 of2
`8 SASL ER
`:
`Pere
`EXHIBIT
`Z.
`tabbies”
`
`

`

`Joba Edward Bryant
`1689.CR3512
`Leesburg, TX 75451
`
`At my death, I grant and convey to the primary beneficiary my interest in the property to
`have and hold forever. If at my death I am not survived by any primary beneficiary, ] grant and
`conveyto the alternate beneficiaries my interest in the property, equally, to have and hold forever.
`
`To the surviving primary or alternate beneficiaries only. Ifa deceased primary oralternate
`beneficiary, if any, was a child or other descendentof mineor of one or both of my parents, I do
`not want that deceased beneficiary's shareto pass to the childrenor other descendants of that
`deceased beneficiary.
`
`If the primary and alternate beneficiaries. do not survive me, this transfer on death deed
`shall be deemed canceled by me.
`
`Whenthe context requires, singularnouns and pronouns includethe plural,
`
`
`
`ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
`
`THE STATE OF TEXAS
`
`tobn Tabvin Brvant
`
`hee Public, Stateof
`
`Texas)
`
`=
`
`msn
`
`
` AFTER RECORDING RETURNTO:
`KIMBERLYBARR
`Thy
`ayeeomen.Expives04-17-2020
`dobnEiwin Bryaot |
`eabratrie, FX75051
`| ae __ Notary1D 10500576
`
`srazd
`
`Prairie,
`
`TX 7505
`
`v= = —
`
`Pot COLE,
`isos
`4
`oe, Shc . +S.
`et Ree
`wh YeExs Je §
`REVOCABLETRANSFERON DEATHDEED 8MPN OR
`8 SomeccceaneetRae
`
`|
`PAGE 2 of 2
`
`

`

`Exhibit “A”
`
`,
`
`BEING TWO TRAOTS OF LAND OUT OF THE ALEX COCKRELL SURVEY, Abstract Noe 2i¢, in
`Dallas County, Texas, and being desoribed as follows;
`‘
`FIRST TRACTrerecealiasGoan; — of 8osetatn weaot,of Jand degoribed
`
`in Vole & page 307 of the
`eas, ze
`of Belles Com
`is
`;
`MapRecords of Ballas County, Texas, and being
`a certain: ir:
`“Land
`300 by
`
`zest, said Northwest somarbekee the Totersection ofVWilsenStreetae 3 ena
`AVERUEs
`°
`THEWE E. withthe 8. line of Amstead Avenue, 300 festto 9 cornex;
`THENCE South parallel with Maidson St, 100 feet for a cornex;
`TOE West parallel with amustead gvenus; 300 feet to2 corner;-
`THESCE North with the E. line of WilsonStreet, 100 feet to theplece of Beginning,
`
`and it being agreed and underatood that the excess strip of land being 22by 100
`fest across the Fast end of said track shalt bs used for stxeet purpeses andparloway
`and fox uo other purpose; and being the same tact of and as set ont and described
`emented by Amp W. Miller et a1 to Philemdan Hasanor-
`ag shown recorded in Vol. 1711 page li27 of theDead Records of Delias County, Texas;
`
`SECOSD TRACT: Beige ell of w tract of Land 100 x 300 feet, Begining 100 feet
`South of.the Nortivest comer of s certain tract of land ‘described in ‘the Hap
`Recordsof Dallas County, Texs, zecaiedin Vol.) page 387; said Nortiwest comer
`being the iatervection of Wileon Street and Amtead Aveoue;
`os
`HENGE Bast 300festwith the South ine of Paileonewn Haesnertractfor 3 corner;
`:
`THENCESowth parallel. with Madison Street 100 feet for a commer;
`”
`THENCE West parallelwith Pailomean Heesuex South Line 300 feat to a point fox corner;
`THENCE North with the Bastlineof Wilgon Street 100feet to theplaceof Beginni
`
`
`and being the same tract of land as set out and described in a deed datedoct.
`1732. fron G@.H. Tuer e% al, to Philomean Haesner, and shownrecorded in Vol. 785
`page U6 of the Deed Records of Delias Comty, Texas;
`Be
`SAVE A) EXGEPEany portionof said tracts of land heretofors. donveyed for right of
`way, and/or road way purposed,
`*
`
`Filedand Reoorced
`OffigialPublic Radords
`Jahn F. Haeren, Gounty Clark
`Callas County, TEXAS—
`02/16/2019 09:01:28 AM
`34.08
`
`
`
`

`

`THE
`
`STATEOF
`
`Fexteleev ioafull, wue,.and
`i
`Feearcopeorretument&sampedMere,
`partlyon
`Eberaby:
`MAY 222018
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`ante
`ooKGMi
`134THJUDICIALDisTRICTCOURT
` yom por JUDGE DALE TILLERY PRESIDING
`600 Commerce St., 6th Floor, Room 650
`“EdeypSe EFne
`214/653-7546--134"Ct,Clerk
`Dallas, Texas 75202-4606
`
`‘ee
`ste
`a
`
`er
`
`214/653-6995 -- Ct. Coordinator
`fly@dallascourts.org
`
`April 16, 2021
`
`KIMBERLI FINN FREUND
`2501 AVE A
`GRAND PRAIRIE TX 75051
`
`Re:
`
`THE ESTATE OF JOHN EDWIN BRYANT vs. KIMBERLI FINN
`FREUND,etal
`DC-19-08758
`
`