Motion for Writ in MICHAEL GROUP LLC vs. MICHAEL LUTANNO| Trellis.Law

On April 14, 2008 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Michael Group Llc, and Lutanno, Michael, for COMMERCIAL DISPUTE in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
8/1/2019 9:15AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK

Christi Underwood
CAUSE NO. 08-04169

KATIE DIMICK, As ASSIGNEE 0F A § 1N THE DISTRICT COURT
FINAL JUDGMENT RENDERED IN FAVOR §
0F §
§
THE MICHAEL GROUP, LLC, §
Plaintiff, 68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
§
V. §
§
MICHAEL LUTANNO, §
Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

APPLCATION FOR WRIT OF SCIRE FACIAS TO REVIVE JUDGMENT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES, KATIE DIMICK, as assignee Judgment Creditor of a ﬁnal
judgment rendered in favor of the original Plaintiff and assignor Judgment Creditor, THE
MICHAEL GROUP, LLC (who may be referenced herein as the “Original
Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor), and against the Defendant and Judgment Debtor,
MICHAEL LUTANNO (who may be referenced herein as the “Defendant/Judgment
Debtor”), in the above-styled and numbered cause (Who may be referenced herein as the
“Assignee/Applicant”), Who ﬁles this Application for Writ 0f Scire Facias t0 Revive
Judgment, inclusive of any and all herein contained and incorporated accompaniments
and attachments (Which may be collectively referenced herein as this “Application”), and
in support thereof would show the Court as follows:

I . Jurisdiction

As the Court that rendered the judgment sought to be revived by writ of scire
facias under this Application, this Court retains jurisdiction over the subject matter and
the parties in this cause. A proceeding on an application for a writ of “scire facias to
revive a dormant judgment” that has been dormant for less than two year as of the date of
the ﬁling of the application is a continuation of the original suit, not an independent suit,

and as a continuation of the original suit it is supported by the jurisdiction of the person
or persons obtained in the original case, the rendering court having “the exclusive
jurisdiction of the case.” Koenig v. Marti, 103 S.W.2d 1023, 1025 (Tex. CiV. App.—F0rt
Worth 1937, writ dism’d W.0.j.); see Berly v. Sias, 152 TeX. 176, 255 S.W.2d 505 (TeX.
1953)

Application for Writ 0fScire Facias t0 Revive Judgment Final Judgment Assignee/Applicant
N0. 08-04169, 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas Page 1 0f 7
2. Venue

As the Court that rendered the judgment sought to be revived by writ of scire
facias under this Application, venue is proper in this Court. A proceeding on an
application for writ of “scire facias to revive a dormant judgment and for execution
thereon” venue rests solely With the court Where the original judgment was rendered.
Koenig v. Marti, 103 S.W.2d 1023, 1025 (Tex. CiV. App.—F0rt Worth 1937, writ dism’d
W.o.j.).

3. The Relevant Provisions offhe Final Judgment Assigned t0 Assignee/Applicant

On September 12, 2008, this Court signed and rendered a ﬁnal, appealable
judgment in favor of the Original Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor and against the
Defendant/Judgment Debtor in the above-styled and numbered cause (Which may be
referenced herein as the “Judgment”).

The Judgment awarded speciﬁed amounts described therein as follows: (1) actual
damages in the amount of $68,511.70; (2) prejudgment interest at the rate of 5% per
annum simple interest on said amount of actual damages from the date on Which the suit
was ﬁled on April 14, 2008, until the date the Judgment was signed on September 12,
2008; (3) reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees of Plaintiff in the amount of
$10,000.00; (4) exemplary damages in the amount of $75,000.00; (5) post-judgment
interest on the total award at the maximum rate allowed by law; and (6) taxable court
costs incurred.

4. Assignment 0fthe Judgment from The Michael Group, LLC t0 Katie Lutanno

On October 11, 2011, the Original Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor executed the
document entitled Assignment 0f Judgment, under notary seal acknowledgement,
assigning the Judgment irrevocably in toto from the Original Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor,
as assignor, to KATIE LUTANNO, Whose lawful name is presently KATIE DIMICK, as
assignee (Which may be referenced herein as the “Assignment”).

The Assignment describes in writing the transfer of the Judgment, under notary
seal acknowledgment jurat, for good and valuable consideration, receipt acknowledged,
With a copy of the Judgment attached thereto.

5. N0 Writ ofExecution Has Been Issued 0n the Judgment

As of the date of ﬁling of this Application, no writ of execution has been issued by
the Dallas County District Clerk on the Judgment.

Application for Writ 0fScire Facias t0 Revive Judgment Final Judgment Assignee/Applicant
N0. 08-04169, 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas Page 2 0f 7
6. The Judgment Became Dormant 0n 0r about September I2, 201 8

Given the foregoing, the Judgment became dormant on or about September 12,
2018.

7. Revival offhe Judgment by Scire Facias (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code S 31.006)

Therefore, this Application seeks to revive the Judgment as to the
Defendant/Judgment Debtor as provided by Section 3 1 .006 of the Texas Civil Practice &
Remedies Code (“[a] dormant judgment may be revived by scire facias . . . brought not
later than the second anniversary of the date that the judgment becomes dormant”). See
Bartz v. Randall, 396 S.W.3d 647, 652-53 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.) (“[b]ecause
the revival action was ﬁled less than two years after the judgment became dormant, the
action was ﬁled timely .. . [under] TeX. CiV. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 31.006”).

8. Amount that Remains Due and Owing 0n the Judgment by the Judgment Debtor

As of the date of ﬁling of this Application, there remains due and owing on the
Judgment by the Defendant/Judgment Debtor the total sum awarded speciﬁed amounts as
described above.

9. N0 Payments Made 0r Credits 0r Offsets Applied, N0 Settlement 0r Compromise

The Judgment remains unpaid in its entirety, no payments having been made or
credits or offset applied to the Judgment, and the Judgment has not be settled or
compromised in any manner or regard.

I 0. Scire Facias Proceeding t0 Revive a Dormant Judgment

“In determining Whether to issue a writ of scire facias to revive a dormant
judgment, a trial court considers the date of the judgment, evidence of any writs of
execution issued on the judgment, and the date of the [application] to revive the
judgment. Chen v. Nguyen, No. 05-15-00077-CV, 2016 WL 258786, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Dallas Jan. 21, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). A scire facias proceeding is a non-evidentiary
hearing for which there is no need for ﬁndings of fact and conclusions of law. Id. In
deciding Whether a judgment should be revived, the trial court is Without discretion to
revive a judgment if the statutory requirements are satisﬁed. Id. (citing Stedman v. Paz,
[511 S.W.3d 635, 638] (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Sept. 2, 2015, no pet.)).” Webb v.

Yorkshire W. Capital, Ina, N0. 05-16-00390-CV, 2017 WL 677825, at *2-3 (TeX.
App.—Dallas Feb. 21, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (cited by McShane v. McShane, 556
S.W.3d 436, 441 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st] 2018, pet. denied)).

Application for Writ 0fScire Facias t0 Revive Judgment Final Judgment Assignee/Applicant
N0. 08-04169, 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas Page 3 0f 7
I 1. Supporting Declaration in Lieu OfAfﬁdavit ofAssignee/Applicant

In support of this Application, Assignee/Applicant attaches hereto the document
entitled Declaration in Lieu 0fAﬁ‘idavit ofAssignee Judgment Creditor, Katie Dimick
(f/k/a Katie Lutanno), in Support 0f Application for Writ 0f Scire Facias t0 Revive
Judgment, Which is incorporated herein by reference for all purposes, as
Assignee/Applicant’s Exhibit “1” (the “Supporting Declaration”).

12. Assignee/Applicant Authenticated Documents: Assignment and Judgment

In further support of this Application, Assignee/Applicant attaches hereto the
document entitled Declaration in Lieu 0f Verification, Aﬂidavit, 0r Certified/Swom
Copy, together With the Assignment and Judgment copies attached thereto and
incorporated therein by reference for all purposes, Which are incorporated herein by
reference for all purposes, as Assignee/Applicant’s Exhibit “2” (the “Authenticated
Documents: Assignment and Judgment”).

13. Request for Hearing by Submission 0n this Application

As provided in the authorities referenced above, Assignee/Applicant requests the
Court to set this Application for hearing by submission as described in the Local Rules of
the Civil Courts of Dallas County, Texas, and the policies/procedures of the Court.

14. Request for Judicial Notice t0 Be Taken 0f Veriﬁable Adiudicative Facts

Upon request by a party to a proceeding and supplied With the necessary
information, a court must take judicial notice of a veriﬁable adjudicative fact—a fact that
is not subj ect to reasonable dispute because it can be accurately and readily determined
from sources Whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. MCI Sales and Serv. v.

Hinton, 329 S.W.3d 475, 509 (TeX. 2010); Longtin v. Country One Stop, Ina, 129
S.W.3d 632, 635-36 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, pet. denied); TeX. R. EVid. 201(b)(2),
201(c)(2).

Assignee/Applicant asks the Court to take judicial notice of the Judgment and the
ﬁlings, documents, items, and other information as may be found in its own records in
this proceeding. See In the Interest 0f B.D.A., 546 S.W.3d 346, 363-64 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist] 2018, no pet); In re C.S., 208 S.W.3d 77, 81-82 (Tex. App.—F0rt
Worth 2006, pet. denied); Tex. Real Estate Comm ’n v. Nagle, 767 S.W.2d 691, 694 (Tex.
1989). Because the court has access to its own records, it is not necessary to supply the
court With a copy of the records to be judicially noticed. See Estate 0f York, 934 S.W.2d
848, 851 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996, no writ).

Application for Writ 0fScire Facias t0 Revive Judgment Final Judgment Assignee/Applicant
N0. 08-04169, 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas Page 4 0f 7
Additionally, Assignee/Applicant asks the Court to take judicial notice of
information publicly available and accessible through the URL address (also referenced
herein as “website”) of a government or quasi-government ofﬁce or agency (otherwise
such entity, association, organization, assembly, platform, program, or application so
enacted, established, chartered, authorized, approved or afﬁrmed) as may be identiﬁed
and provided by Assignee/Applicant in this proceeding, Which may contain distinctive
content, substance, internal patterns, and other characteristics as may be found and
captured on said website. Williams Farms Produce Sales, Inc. v. R & G Produce C0.,
443 S.W.3d 250, 253-54, 258-60 n.7 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014, no pet);
Hydroscience Techs., Inc. v. Hydroscience, Ina, 401 S.W.3d 783, 791-92 (TeX. App.—
Dallas 2013, pet. denied); Avery v. LPP Mortg, Ltd, No. 01-14-01007-CV, 2015 TeX.
App. LEXIS 11136, at *6-8, 10 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist] Oct. 29, 2015, no pet.)
(mem. 0p.) (citing Williams Farms Produce Sales, Inc. v. R & G Produce C0,, 443
S.W.3d 250, 259 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014, no pet.)); Kitty Hawk Aircargo, Inc.
v. Chaa, 418 F.3d 453, 457 (5th Cir. 2005); Coleman v. Dretke, 409 F.3d 665, 667 (5th
Cir. 2005) (per curiam); see also Yetiv v. Chase Home Fin, LLC, CiV. No. 4:11-CV-
01250, 2012 WL 112597, at *4 n.1 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2012); Tex. R. EVid. 201(b)(2),
201(c)(2), 803(8), 901(b)(4), 901(b)(7), 902(5).

I 5. Conclusion

Therefore, Assignee/Applicant brings this Application for proceeding to revive the
Judgment as to Defendant/Judgment Debtor and to extend the enforcement of same.

The Court should grant this Application and have issued a writ of scire facias as to
Defendant/Judgment Debtor in the manner and form prescribed by law, requiring
Defendant/Judgment Debtor to appear before the Court on a date and time determined, as
may be set and scheduled upon the docket of the Court, and show cause Why the
Judgment should not be revived, and thereafter, the Judgment should be revived in all

respects and extended for the full period provided by law With the Court directing
issuance of execution on the Judgment.

Finally, the Court should tax all costs against Defendant/Judgment Debtor, and
award Assignee/Applicant such other and further relief, general and special, in law and in
equity, to Which Assignee/Applicant may be shown to be justly entitled.

I 6. Prayer

For these reasons, Assignee/Applicant requests from the Court as follows:

Application for Writ 0fScire Facias t0 Revive Judgment Final Judgment Assignee/Applicant
N0. 08-04169, 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas Page 5 0f 7
(1) that scire facias writ be issued as to Defendant/Judgment Debtor,
MICHAEL LUTANNO, in the manner and form prescribed by law,
requiring Defendant/Judgment Debtor, MICHAEL LUTANNO, t0 appear
before the Court 0n a date and time determined, as may be set and
scheduled upon the docket of the Court, and show cause why the Judgment
should not be revived;

(2) that the Judgment be revived in all respects and extended for the full period
provided by law;

(3) that the Court direct issuance of execution on the Judgment;

(4) that the Court tax all costs against Defendant/Judgment Debtor, MICHAEL
LUTANNO; and

(5) that the Court award Assignee/Applicant such other and further relief,

general and special, in law and in equity, t0 Which Assignee/Applicant may
be shown t0 be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

THOMAS W. STEPHENS, P.C.

Th O m a S
signed by Thomas
Digitally
Stephens
DN: cn=Thomas Stephens, o,ou,
'I=t 1@ 'I. =Us
/S/
Ste p h e n S ,

321'; zov¥2$73€??ﬁg??.ocs-oo'

THOMAS W. STEPHENS
Attorney at Law
SBN: 24041972
16107 Kensington Dr., No. 520
Sugar Land, Texas 77479
Tel.: 713-256-3451
Email: twspc 1 @gmail.c0m

Attorney for Assignee/Applicant, Katie Dimick
(f/k/a Katie Lutanno), Judgment Creditor

Application for Writ 0fScire Facias to Revive Judgment Final Judgment Assignee/Applicant
N0. 08—04169, 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas Page 6 0f 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR
I certify that on July 30, 2019, service of a true and correct copy of this
Application (inclusive of all accompanying attachments incorporated therein by reference
and all proposed instruments for consideration by the Court) is perfected by serving on
each requisite party 0r designated counsel in this proceeding in accordance With
applicable law, see also Schluter v. Sell, 194 S.W.2d 125, 130 (Tex. CiV. App.—Austin
1946, no writ) (“reasonable notice is all that is required to support the judgment of revival
or to enforce execution of the judgment”), as further provided below:

To Defendant/Judgment Debtor:

Via USPS First-Class Certified Mail, Postage Prepaid
CMR N0. 7019 0160 0000 2034 1945
Michael Lutanno
2818 Green Fields Dr.
Sugar Land, Texas 77479
Tel.: 281-902-7282
Email: mlutann0@gmail.c0m

Via USPS First-Class Regular Mail, Postage Prepaid
Michael Lutanno
2818 Green Fields Dr.
Sugar Land, Texas 77479
Tel.: 281-902-7282
Email: mlutann0@gmail.c0m

Th O m a S Digitally signed by Thomas
Stephens
DN: cn=Thomas Stephens, o, ou,
email=twspc1 @gmail.com, c=US

/s/
Ste p h e n S Date: 201 9.07.30 10:53:30 -05'OO'

THOMAS W. STEPHENS

Application for Writ 0fScire Facias to Revive Judgment Final Judgment Assignee/Applicant
N0. 08—04169, 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas Page 7 0f 7
ASSIGNEE/APPLICANT’S
EXHIBIT “1”

(THE “SUPPORTING DECLARATION”)
CAUSE NO. 08-04169

THE MICHAEL GROUP, LLC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff §
§
v. 68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
§
MICHAEL LUTANNO, §
Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

DECLARATION IN LIEU OF AFFIDAVIT OF ASSIGNEE JUDGMENT
CREDITOR, KATIE DIMICK (F/K/A KATIE LUTANNO), IN SUPPORT OF
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF SCIRE FACIAS TO REVIVE JUDGMENT
Pmbl. I, the undersigned Declarant, in accordance With Section 132.001 of the Texas Civil
Practice & Remedies Code, authorizing the execution of an unsworn declaration in lieu of a
written sworn declaration, veriﬁcation, certiﬁcation, oath, or afﬁdavit required by statute or
required by a rule, order, or requirement adopted as provided by law (Which may be
referenced herein as this “Declaration”), see, e.g, Tex. Dep't ofPub. Safety v. Caruana, 363
S.W.3d 558, 564 (TeX. 2012), Dominguez v. State, 441 S.W.3d 652, 657-59 (TeX. App.—
Houston [lst Dist] 2014, no pet), Bonney v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass’n, No. 05-15-01057-CV,
2016 WL 3902607, at *6-8 (TeX. App.—Da11as July 14, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.), hereby
declare hereunder as follows:

The Judgment

1. “On September 12, 2008, a ﬁnal, appealable judgment was signed in favor The
Michael Group, LLC, original Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor, and against Defendant/
Judgment Debtor, Michael Lutanno, in the principle amount of $153,511.70, the sum of the
amounts awarded therein, plus post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law
and taxable court costs incurred, in the suit styled and numbered as The Michael Group,
LLC V. Michael Lutanno, Cause N0. 08-04169, In the District Court, 68th Judicial
District, Dallas County, Texas (Which may be referenced herein as the “Judgment”).

The Assignment

2. On October 11, 2011, The Michael Group, LLC, original Plaintiff/Judgment
Creditor, executed the document entitled Assignment 0f Judgment, under notary seal
acknowledgement, assigning the Judgment irrevocably in toto from The Michael Group,
LLC, as original Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor assignor, to Katie Lutanno, as assignee and
successor in interest Judgment Creditor; the Assignment describes in writing the transfer of
the Judgment for good and valuable consideration, receipt acknowledged, With a copy of the
Judgment attached thereto (Which may be referenced herein as the “Assignment”).

Application for Writ ofScire Facias N0. 08-04169, 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas
CP&R Code § 132.001 Declaration Page 1 0f 3
The Assignee

3. “I am the assignee, successor in interest, and owner of the Judgment under the
Assignment described above; I have not granted, assigned, transferred, or otherwise
conveyed any right, title, or interest in the Judgment to any person or persons; I am without
actual knowledge or awareness of any noticed, asserted, or prosecuted claim, lien, or other
encumbrance against my right, title, 0r interest in the Judgment.

Writ of Execution Issuance(s)

4. “Counsel for The Michael Group, LLC, original Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor
assignor, represented to me that no writ 0f execution on the Judgment was sought, issued,
provided, 0r returned in accordance With applicable law as 0f the date of execution of the
Assignment; I have reviewed the relevant information in this matter Via the website of the
Dallas County District Clerk, Which contains publicly accessible records maintained by
same, and I found n0 information that contradicts the aforementioned representation as 0f the
date ﬁrst written below; I have not sought any writ 0f execution issuance 0n the Judgment
as 0f the date ﬁrst written below. See the URL address of said website of the Dallas County
District Clerk as follows: https://c0urtsportal.dallascountv.or2/DALLASPROD.

Payment(s), Credit(s), 0r Offset(s) Towards the Judgment

5. “Counsel for The Michael Group, LLC, original Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor
assignor, represented t0 me that no payments have been made and no credits 0r offset have
been applied towards the amount owing on the Judgment as 0f the date of execution 0f the
Assignment; as of the date ﬁrst written below, (1) I have not received any payments, credits
0r offsets towards the amount due and owing on the Judgment, (2) I have found no record or
accounting of any payment or deposit in any amount being tendered to the registry 0f the
Court towards the satisfaction of the Judgment in this matter, (3) the Judgment has not
been paid 0r otherwise settled or compromised in any amount or regard and remains unpaid
and owing in its full amount, and (4) I am Without actual knowledge or awareness of any
counterclaims or set-offs asserted by or rendered in favor of Defendant/ Judgment Debtor,
Michael Lutanno, against the Judgment.

Amount Due and Owing 0n the Judgment

6. “As of the date ﬁrst written below, there remains due and owing on the Judgment by
Defendant/Judgment Debtor, Michael Lutanno, the sum total of awarded speciﬁed amounts
described therein as: (1) actual damages in the amount of $68,511.70, (2) prejudgment
interest at the rate of 5% per annum simple interest on said amount 0f actual damages from
the date on Which the suit was ﬁled on 04/14/2008 until the date the Judgment was signed
on 09/12/2008, (3) reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees of Plaintiff in the amount of
$10,000.00, (4) exemplary damages in the amount of $75,000.00, (5) post-judgment interest
at the maximum rate allowed by law, and (6) taxable court costs incurred.

Application for Writ 0fScire Facias No. 08-04169, 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas
CP&R Code § 132.001 Declaration Page 2 0f 3
Last Known Address

7. “The last known address of Defendant/Judgment Debtor, Michael Lutanno, is 2818
Green Fields Dr., Sugar Land, Texas 77479, Which is the current postal/street address of
the residence of Defendant/Judgment Debtor, Michael Lutanno, as I have personally Visited
same and witnessed such.

Revival 0f the Judgment Sought

8. “This Declaration is made and presented for the purposes of reviving the Judgment
in the manner and for the period prescribed by law.

Personal Knowledge and Capacity 0f Declarant

9. “I have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein, including as an interested
person in this matter, as described herein; I am of sound mind, legally competent, and
capable of making this Declaration.

CP&R Code §132.001 Declaration Jurat

10. “My name is Katie Dimick (f/k/a Katie Lutanno), my date of birth is December 6,
1977, and my address is 3922 Issacks Way, Sugar Land, Texas 77479, and USA. I declare

under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.”

Executed in FORT BEND County, Texas, on the 30th day of JULY, 202.

Lawful Use & Effect 0f Electronic/Digital Signature“):
E-SIGN Act (15 USC 7001 et seq. & 12 CFR Part 609), UETAct (TeX. B&C Code § 322.001 et seq.);
Gillis v. Harris Cnty., 554 S.W.3d 188, 191-93 (TeX. App.—H0ust0n [14th Dist.] 2018, n0 pet.);

Khoury v. Tomlinson, 518 S.W.3d 568, 575, 585 n.3 (TeX. App—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, n0 pet.);
Williamson v. Bank ofNew York Mellon, 947 F. Supp. 2d 704, 709, 711 (N.D. TeX. 2013);
TeX. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 2.26, 45.012;
IRMAct (Tex. Gov’tCode signed by Katie Dimick
Digitally

1
§ 2054.001 et seq.);
Tex. Admin. Code § 203.1 et seq. (2019); Kat I e DN: §n=K§tI§ DImIck, o,.ou,
Tex. Fam. Code §§ 1.109, 47.003, 101.0096, 102.014: emjgl=kdum.ck77@gma.l.com,
. .
C:

By: /s/
D I II Ck
I I
Date: 201 9.07.30 10242204 -05'00'

Katie Dimick (f/k/a Katie Lutanno), Declarant

Application for Writ ofScire Facias N0. 08-04169, 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas
CP&R Code § 132.001 Declaration Page 3 0f 3
ASSIGNEE/APPLICANT’S
EXHIBIT “2”

(THE “AUTHENTICATED DOCUMENTS: ASSIGNMENT AND JUDGMENT”)
DECLARATION IN LIEU OF VERIFICATION, AFFIDAVIT, OR CERTIFIED/SWORN COPY
Pmbl. I, the undersigned Declarant, in accordance with Section 132.001 0f the Texas Civil
Practice & Remedies Code, authorizing the execution 0f an unsworn declaration in lieu 0f a
written sworn declaration, veriﬁcation, certiﬁcation, oath, 0r afﬁdavit required by statute 0r
required by a rule, order, 0r requirement adopted as provided by law (which may be referenced
herein as this “Declaration”), see, e.g, Tex. Dep't ofPub. Safely v. Caruana, 363 S.W.3d 558,
564 (TeX. 2012), Dominguez v. State, 441 S.W.3d 652, 657-59 (TeX. App.—H0ust0n [lst Dist]
2014, n0 pet), Bonney v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass’n, N0. 05-15-01057—CV, 2016 WL 3902607, at *6-
8 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 14, 2016, n0 pet.) (mam. 0p.), hereby declare hereunder as follows:

1. “Accompanying and attached t0 this Declaration, and incorporated herein by reference
for allpurposes, is a true and correct copy 0f a two (2) page document entitled Assignment 0f
Judgment (which may be referenced herein as the “Assignment”), shown as executed 0n
10/1 1/2011, having been acknowledged therein under notary seal by The Michael Group, LLC,
original Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor assignor, who received a ﬁnal, appealable judgment against
Defendant/Judgment Debtor, Michael Lutanno, in the principle amount 0f $153,511.70, signed
by the presiding judge 0f the trial court 0n 09/12/2008 in the suit styled and numbered as The
Michael Group, LLC V. Michael Lutanno, Cause N0. 08-04169, In the District Court, 68th

Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas (which may be referenced herein as the “Judgment”);
the Assignment describes in writing the transfer by assignment 0f the Judgment irrevocably in

toto from The Michael Group, LLC, as assignor thereof, t0 Katie Lutanno, as assignee and
successor in interest thereof, for good and valuable consideration, receipt acknowledged, and a
copy 0f the Judgment attached thereto; the Assignment contains distinctive content, substance,
internal patterns, and other characteristics as may be shown as recorded hereafter and provided
by the Dallas County District Clerk, as recorder thereof, from the ofﬁcial public records
maintained by same in this mater, where such information 0f record 0f this kind may be kept, as
provided by law. TRCP 59; TRE 101(h), 901(b)(7), 902(8), 902(1 1).

2. “Said document copy 0f the Assignment accurately reﬂects truly and correctly, without
material alteration, the information 0f the original, and therefore, said document copy is

considered the original thereof in order t0 prove the contents depicted therein; 0r, in the
alternative, said document copy may be considered a duplicate 0f the original as a counterpart
thereof produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, 0r other equivalent
process 0r technique that accurately reproduces the original thereof and is admissible t0 the same
extent as the original. TRE 1001-03.

3. “At all time relevant t0 said document copy 0f the Assignment, inclusive 0f the date ﬁrst
written below, I have had possession, custody, and control 0f the original thereof and said
document copy, which I personally created 0r rendered, 0r caused t0 be created 0r rendered, in
physical form. TRCP 192.7(b).

4. “Accompanying and attached t0 this Declaration, and incorporated herein by reference
for all purposes, is a true and correct copy 0f a three (3) page document entitled Final Default
Judgment as t0 Liability and Damages, the assigned Judgment described above and referenced
as same herein, shown as signed by the presiding judge 0f the trial court 0n 09/12/2008 in the
suit styled and numbered as The Michael Group, LLC V. Michael Lutanno, Cause N0. 08-
04169, In the District Court, 68th Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas, in favor 0f the
original Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor, The Michael Group, LLC, and against Defendant/
Judgment Debtor, Michael Lutanno, and describing the awarded speciﬁed amounts therein as:

Authenticated Assignment ofJudgment N0. 08-04169, 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas
CP&R Code § 132.001 Declaration Page 1 of 2
DECLARATION IN LIEU OF VERIFICATION, AFFIDAVIT, OR CERTIFIED/SWORN COPY
(1) actual damages in the amount 0f $68,511.70, (2) prejudgment interest at the rate 0f 5% per
annum simple interest 0n said amount 0f actual damages from the date 0n which the suit was
ﬁled 0n 04/14/2008 until the date the Judgment was signed 0n 09/12/2008, (3) reasonable and
necessary attorney’s fees 0f Plaintiff in the amount 0f $10,000.00, (4) exemplary damages in the
amount 0f $75,000.00, (5) post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, and (6)
taxable court costs incurred; the Judgment contains distinctive content, substance, internal
patterns, and other characteristics as may be shown as recorded hereafter and provided by the
Dallas County District Clerk, as recorder thereof, from the ofﬁcial public records maintained
by same in this mater, where such information 0f record 0f this kind may be kept, as provided by
law. TRCP 59; TRE 101(h), 901(b)(7), 902(8), 902(1 1).

5. “Said document copy 0f the Judgment accurately reﬂects truly and correctly, without
material alteration, the information 0f the Assignment—inclusive copy, and therefore, said
document copy is considered t0 be the Assignment—inclusive copy, in order t0 prove the contents
depicted therein; 0r, in the alternative, said document copy may be considered a duplicate 0f the
Assignment—inclusive copy as a counterpart thereof produced

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: MICHAEL GROUP LLC vs. MICHAEL LUTANNO

Preview

Case Info

Parties