Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 384 views

    Waller v. Waller - Sworn Account - Defendant's Original Answer

    Uploaded by

    Bill Waller
    To defeat a properly pleaded suit on Sworn Account under Tex. R. Civ. P. 185, the defendant must file a verified denial of the account. The defendant's denials in this case were incompetent and legally insufficient because they failed to state or show personal knowledge and that the denial were true.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Waller v. Waller - Sworn Account - Defendant's Original Answer

    Uploaded by

    Bill Waller
    384 views6 pages
    To defeat a properly pleaded suit on Sworn Account under Tex. R. Civ. P. 185, the defendant must file a verified denial of the account. The defendant's denials in this case were incompetent and legally insufficient because they failed to state or show personal knowledge and that the denial were true.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    To defeat a properly pleaded suit on Sworn Account under Tex. R. Civ. P. 185, the defendant must file a verified denial of the account. The defendant's denials in this case were incompetent and legally insufficient because they failed to state or show personal knowledge and that the denial were true.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    384 views6 pages

    Waller v. Waller - Sworn Account - Defendant's Original Answer

    Uploaded by

    Bill Waller
    To defeat a properly pleaded suit on Sworn Account under Tex. R. Civ. P. 185, the defendant must file a verified denial of the account. The defendant's denials in this case were incompetent and legally insufficient because they failed to state or show personal knowledge and that the denial were true.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 6

    CAUSE NO.

    CV09786

    WILLIAM D. WALLER, JR. § IN THE COUNTY COURT


    Plaintiff §
    §
    VS. § AT LAW OF
    §
    SUSAN WALLER, DOROTHY REID §
    WALLER and WALLER MEDIA, LLC §
    Defendants § CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

    DEFENDANTS’ PLEA IN ABATEMENT, MOTION TO DISMISS, AND, SUBJECT TO THE


    FOREGOING, ORIGINAL ANSWER

    Defendants file this Plea in Abatement, Motion to Dismiss, and, Subject to the Foregoing,

    Original Answer, and show:

    PLEA IN ABATEMENT

    1. Plaintiff has filed suit against Defendants alleging numerous theories, including

    fraud, felonies under the Texas Penal Code and United States Code, violations of the Hobbs Act,

    suit on sworn account, breach of contract, quantum meruit, and potentially other theories, albeit

    unclear from his pleadings. However, Plaintiff’s claims should be abated because there is a

    previously filed and pending lawsuit with some of the above-named parties that involves many of

    the same or similar allegations. This previously filed lawsuit is Cause Number 2016-11-0772, filed

    in the 2nd Judicial District Court of Cherokee County, Texas. See attached Exhibit A, which is a

    true and correct copy of the Plaintiff’s operative pleadings in Cause Number 2016-11-0772, which

    is incorporated by reference to show the pending suit, the parties thereto and the claims asserted

    therein by Plaintiff. This requires the Court to at least abate this case.

    MOTION TO DISMISS

    2. Accordingly, Defendants move to dismiss the petition on file herein for it appears

    on the face of the petition in this case that there is another action pending between the same parties

    Waller, Jr. v. Waller, et al. 
    Defendants’ Plea in Abatement, Motion to Dismiss, and, Subject to the 
    Forgoing, Original Answer   Page 1 
    concerning many of the same events that are made the basis of Plaintiff’s petition in the District

    Court action. The filing of this lawsuit is nothing but Plaintiff’s thinly-veiled attempt to avoid the

    discovery cut-off in District Court. The District Court action is first-in-time and pending; and the

    rights of the parties may be fully determined and adjudged in District Court. This requires the

    Court to dismiss this action.

    GENERAL DENIAL

    3. In the alternative and without waiving the forgoing, Defendants deny, each and

    every, all and singular, the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Original Petition and demand strict

    proof thereof, in accordance with Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

    VERIFIED DENIAL

    4. Subject to and without waiving the forgoing Plea in Abatement, Motion to Dismiss,

    and General Denial, Defendants specifically deny, pursuant to Rule 93(10) of the Texas Rules of

    Civil Procedure, the “open” account which is the foundation of Plaintiff’s Suit on Sworn Account

    against Defendants, and demand strict proof of all items in the account.

    CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

    5. It affirmatively appears that there is a prior-filed and pending suit in Cause Number

    2016-11-0772, pending in the 2ND Judicial District Court of Cherokee County. The plaintiff in

    both suits is the same person. And the defendants in Cause Number 2016-11-0772 are defendants

    herein.

    6. The prior-pending suit requires this Court to abate this case and, upon abatement,

    dismiss this case.

    Waller, Jr. v. Waller, et al. 
    Defendants’ Plea in Abatement, Motion to Dismiss, and, Subject to the 
    Forgoing, Original Answer   Page 2 
    7. Defendants pray that their Plea in Abatement and Motion to Dismiss be set for

    hearing and that, following such hearing, the Court compel Plaintiff to proceed with his claims in

    the previously-filed District Court action by dismissing this case.

    8. Subject to Defendants’ Plea in Abatement and Motion to Dismiss, Defendants

    request that, upon final hearing, Plaintiff take nothing by way of his claims and that Defendants

    be awarded attorney fees and costs of Court and such other and further relief, both at law and in

    equity, that they may show themselves justly entitled.

    Respectfully submitted,

    SLOAN, HATCHER, PERRY, RUNGE, ROBERTSON & SMITH

    /s/ Micah L. Satterwhite


    ________________________________________
    JOHN D. SLOAN, JR.
    State Bar No. 18505100
    jsloan@sloanfirm.com
    MICAH L. SATTERWHITE
    State Bar No. 24102463
    msatterwhite@sloanfirm.com

    P.O. Drawer 2909


    Longview, Texas 75606
    Telephone: 903-757-7000
    Facsimile: 903-757-7574

    ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT SUSAN J. WALLER

    and

    AMENT PEACOCK

    /s/ Nicholas S. Peacock

    NICHOLAS S. PEACOCK
    State Bar. No. 24048105
    nick@amentpeacocklaw.com

    Waller, Jr. v. Waller, et al. 
    Defendants’ Plea in Abatement, Motion to Dismiss, and, Subject to the 
    Forgoing, Original Answer   Page 3 
    P.O. Box 751
    Jacksonville, TX 75766
    Telephone: 903-586-3561
    Facsimile: 903-586-7338

    ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS DOROTHY REID


    WALLER & WALLER MEDIA, LLC

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure a true and correct copy
    of this document was served upon the following on this the 26st day of December, 2018:

    William D. Waller, Jr.


    11652 CR 2210
    Tyler, TX 75701
    Plaintiff, Pro Se

    /s/ Micah L. Satterwhite


    ____________________________________
    JOHN D. SLOAN, JR.
    MICAH L. SATTERWHITE

    Waller, Jr. v. Waller, et al. 
    Defendants’ Plea in Abatement, Motion to Dismiss, and, Subject to the 
    Forgoing, Original Answer   Page 4 

    You might also like