Preview
CAUSE No.
FIRST COLONY COMMUNITY EXAS DISTRICT COURT
SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INC.
Plaintiff/Counter Defendant
RICHARD ALAN HAASE and
Richard Alan Haase,
Defendants Counter Plaintiffs
JACK MOLHO,
PHYLLIS MURRAY,
SHARON BARBOZA,
ANDREA LEWMAN, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
J.R. ATKINS,
KOLBE CURTICE,
ANDREA LEWMAN,
RICK CONLEY,
JACK WAGNER and
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY
’TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
HAASE’S OTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
COMES NOW, RICHARD A. HAASE (persona of the United States Corporation,
e.g. United States, Inc. and/or UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) and Richard A. Haase
(live individual, as per the original Republic of the United States of America), Defendant
and Counter Plaintiff (“Ha Motion for the Court to enforce Settlement Agreement
executed between Haase and FIRST COLONY COMMUNITY SERVICES
ASSOCIATION (“FCCS”), Plaintiff/Counter defendant, and JACK
defendant, (FCCS and MOLHO are combinedly FCCSA), and
Authorities
Cases:
AMX Enters., Inc. v. Bank One, N.A., 196 S.W.3d 202, 206 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist.]
2006, pet. denied).
Barrett v. Ferrell, 550 S.W.2d 138, 143 (Tex. Civ. App. Tyler 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
Buccaneer Homes of Ala., Inc. v. Pelis, 43 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist.]
2001, no pet.).
Caballero In re, 441 S.W.3d 562, 572 (Tex. App. El Paso 2014, orig. proceeding).
CTTI Priesmeyer, Inc. v. K & O Ltd. P'ship, 164 S.W.3d 675, 683 (Tex.App. Austin
2005, no pet.).
Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378, 390 (Tex.2000).
Dallas County v. Rischon Dev. Corp., 242 S.W.3d 90, 93 94 (Tex. App. Dallas 2007, pet.
denied).
Edwards v. Mid Continent Office, 252 S.W.3d 833, 837 n.7 (Tex. App. Dallas 2008, pet.
denied).
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Berryman, 858 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Tex.1993).
EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias, 934 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tex. 1996).
First Title Co. v. Garrett, 860 S.W.2d 74, 78 (Tex.1993).
Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 234 S.W.3d 642, 651 (Tex. 2007).
Garcia v. Harding, 545 S.W.3d 8, 13 14 (Tex. App. El Paso 2017, no pet.).
Guardianship of the Person & Estate of White In re, 329 S.W.3d 591, 592 (Tex. App. El
Paso 2010, no pet.).
McCullough v. Scarbrough, Medlin & Assocs., 435 S.W.3d 871, 891 (Tex. App. Dallas
2014, pet. denied).
Scott Richter v. Taffarello, 186 S.W.3d 182, 189 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied).
Shamrock Psychiatric Clinic, P.A. v. Tex. HHS, 540 S.W.3d 553, 61 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 407,
411 412 (Tex. 2018)(per curiam).
Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Mims 405 S.W. 319, 339 (Tex.App. Dallas 2013, no pet.).
Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Sterling, 822 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tex.1991)).
Tri State Chemicals v. Western Organics, 83 S.W.3d 189, 193 195 (Tex. App. Amarillo
2002, pet. denied).
Whallon v. City of Houston, 462 S.W.3d 146, 162 164 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.]
2015, no pet.).
Response and Amendment
This motion is in response to FCCSA refusal to honor a Settlement Agreement
(“Settlement”), often referred to as a Rule 11 Agreement after Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
(“TRCP”) 11, for all claims in this Cause executed on or about May 11, 2021 with an amended
completion April 5, 2023 by Haase and Briana Herman (“Herman” “Completion”).
FCCSA, through their legal counsel, stated on the record June 26, 2023 a refusal
to accept Completion, as performed by Haase.
This motion is further an amendment to Haase’s Amended Objection and Motion
for Continuance filed June 26, 2023 (“Amendment”). Authorities and argument in support and
form basis of this motion are provided to the court in Amendment.
III. Argument
In pertinent part in Settlement Haase and FCCSA agre
R. Haase will accept the monetary consideration of ten thousand dollars
($10,000.00) to be paid directly to FCCSA by its insurers on his behalf to
resolve this claim, in full satisfaction of all assessments owed to FCCSA
through January 1, 2021 and a portion of reimbursement to FCCSA for its
attorney fees incurred. Upon receipt of this payment and within thirty (30)
days of completion of R. Haase’s repairs to his Property, FCCSA will then
waive the remaining amounts owed from R. Haase’s Association account
balance such that R. Haase’s account balance will be zero dollars ($0.00).
Within three (3) months from the date of execution of this Agreement, R.
Haase shall: (1) Submit to FCCSA for approval plans for painting and/or
repairs following the FCCSA guidelines and processes; (2) paint the
exterior of his Property in a color allowed and approved by FCCSA; (3)
remove the mildew and mold from the sides and front of the exterior of
his Property, including his garage door; (4) power wash or otherwise
n the driveway; and (5) maintain his Property per the applicable
FCCSA governing documents.
3. FCCSA or its insurers on its behalf will fund the settlement payment within
thirty (30) days of completion of the above repairs.
Upon the completion of the aforesaid requirements in paragraphs 1 through
3, FCCSA shall reactivate and restore R. Haase’s facilities privileges.
Upon completion of the aforesaid requirements, the Parties shall file with
the Court an Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Counsel for the
Association Parties will prepare the Agreed Motion for R. Haase’s review
and execution and the Parties shall work together to complete this agreed
dismissal document.
At the mutual request of the Parties, the terms of settlement are and shall be
held confidential.
Each Party is to bear its own attorney fees and costs and costs of Court.
8. Nothing in this Agreement modifies or alleviates R. Haase’s ongoing
obligations to comply with the FCCSA governing documents applicable to
his Property. Nothing in this Agreement modifies or waives the
Association’s legal remedies should R. Haase fail to comply with FCCSA
governing documents, rules, regulations, and guidelines in the future.
Ex.A ¶
Haase obtained quotation to have his house painted learning that there were 2
hives and rotted wood in the back of his home
“Bee removal costs were over $ ,500” Ex. A ¶
ood replacement and painting near $11,500 (3 quotes)” Ex. A ¶
Therefore, exterior repairs to his home totaled near $1 ,000 an amount that was
not planned nor expected.
In pertinent part, Haase has in parallel with this Cause suit against numerous
nking entities in regard his mortgage, Cause No. 161177 (the “177”) in the Texas
400 District Court (“TX 400 ”) of Fort Bend County. While Haase is aghast at the heinous
acts performed by the banks in relation to his mortgage and home and is rather bullish on his
legal outcome, he would very much prefer not to invest said $1 ,000 in his home until he
knows that he will own it, obviously Communicating the same to FCCSA, Haase and FCCSA
been waiting outcome of the ‘177, which is now, most unfortunately, under appeal at the
Texas First Court of Appeals (the “TX 1st”) as 01 00854
April 5, 2023 this Honorable Court scheduled a status hearing; wherein, the
court asked FCCSA with Brianna H man representing and Haase to ascertain if ettlement
could still be completed. H man and Haase conferenced determining (“Completion”)
FCCSA had already obtained the $10,000 insurance claim [this is even
though Haase’s items were not as yet complete (an act by FCCSA that
is contrary to Settlement (Supra))]; the $10,000 claim was to be after
completion Ex. A ¶
It was agreed for Haase to complete all items of the Settlement with
added stipulations that: Haase was not required to replace any wood,
was only required to paint portions of his home needing paint and visible
from the street, and inspection of his home was only to be on agreed upon
items with no additions and would be from the street, as is normal course
for FCCSA; as, FCCSA is not allowed to inspect on property Ex. A ¶
It was agreed that Haase would complete within 30 days, weather
permitting Ex. A ¶
“FCCSA would not allow Haase access to FCCSA Facilities” Ex. A ¶
Haase performed Completion,
In April of 2023, Settlement was modified by conversation between [Haase]
and Briana Herman (Herman), attorney representing FCCSA; wherein agreed
completion items on [his] home were made (Completion) where , it was
agreed that [Haase] was to power wash [his] driveway and sidewalk, as well as
paint [his] ho as needed and remov any visible mold. It was further agreed
that [Haase] was not required to replace any wood. It was still further agreed
that home inspection would be made from the street, as is the limit of FCCSA
Inspection Ability.” Ex.A ¶
FCCSA performed an inspection and breache Completion
“FCCSA’s attorney, Herman, communicated [Haase] that the required items
in Completion were not done Completion was violated by Haase and we must
go to trial; after which, Haase communicated to Herman the FCCSA
communication a false representation a completed required items pursuant
Completion, demanding pictures of the FCCSA Inspection; after which, Herman
sent Haase] 2 pictures: one picture revealed some mold on paint at the back North
West corner of the ho ; where it is most important to note that one could not
see from the street; and where, the picture was obviously taken in front yard
near the West Wall of his ; FCCSA further complained of and took pictures
of vines on the East Wall of [his] home; when, there was no requirement
ompletion for Haase to remove vines. Ex.A ¶
Regardless of FCCSA breach and unilateral modification of Completion
to which [Haase does] not agree, Haase] removed the mildew in the back
portion of [his] and removed the vines. FCCSA still
demands trial, regardless of Settlement and Completion.” Ex.A ¶
In an evidentiary hearing, Haase will gladly evidence before the court pictures
that demonstrate his compliance with Settlement and Completion, both before and after
FCCSA’s unilateral modification.
As is normally the case in Fort Bend County, it rained frequently and heavily
during April and May; such that, Haase did not finish completion until Memorial Day,
“Frequent rain, spring showers, delayed Completion Memorial Day” Ex. A ¶ .
Compounding matters and demonstrating the greed and deceptiveness of
FCCA, FCCSA took monetary advantage of Settlement, obtaining $10,000 from its insurance
company, funds that were not to be available until Settlement Completion Supra
“Conversation with Herman provided that FCCSA filed a claim with their
insurance carrier and obtained $10,000; these funds were a part of Settlement
not to be available to FCCSA until Settlement Completion.”
To both obtain an insurance claim and continue to seek fees from Haase over the same period
violates the One Satisfaction Rule.
[T]he longstanding proposition that a plaintiff should not be compensated
twice for the same injury CTTI Priesmeyer, Inc. v. K & O Ltd. P'ship, 164 S.W.3d 675, 683
(Tex.App. Austin 2005, no pet.) (citing Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Sterling, 822 S.W.2d 1, 7
(Tex.1991)); also, Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378, 390 (Tex.2000). The rule
guards against a plaintiff receiving a windfall by recovering an amount in court that covers
the plaintiff's entire damages, but to which a settling defendant has already partially
contributed. The plaintiff would otherwise be recovering an amount greater than
the trier of fact has determined would fully compensate for the injury First Title Co. v.
Garrett, 860 S.W.2d 74, 78 (Tex.1993). The one satisfaction rule applies both when several
defendants commit the same act and when multiple defendants commit technically different
acts that result in the same, single injury AMX Enters., Inc. v. Bank One, N.A., 196 S.W.3d
202, 206 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (citing Casteel, 22 S.W.3d
at 390). The application of the rule is not limited to tort claims, and whether the rule may be
applied depends not on the cause of action asserted but rather the injury sustained. . (citing
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Berryman 858 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Tex.1993); Stewart Title, 822
S.W.2d at 8). Thus, if the plaintiff has suffered only one injury, even if based on overlapping
and varied theories of liability, the plaintiff may only recover once; [t]his is
especially true if the evidence supporting each cause of action is the same Buccaneer Homes
of Ala., Inc. v. Pelis, 43 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.).
14. FCCSA still demands annual fees from Haase, regardless of Completion the
$10,000 insurance payment and denial of FCCSA Facilities to Haase during the same period
thereby creating a situation of njust nrichment for FCCSA, as well as violation of the One
Satisfaction Rule, and harm toward Haase
15. [Haase] may establish that the [$10,000 rightfully belongs to [Haase] by
evidence that shows [FCCSA] obtained the money by fraud, duress, or taking an undue
advantag Barrett v. Ferrell, 550 S.W.2d 138, 143 (Tex. Civ. App. Tyler 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
A claim for money already received “belongs conceptually to the doctrine of unjust enrichment”
McCullough v. Scarbrough, Medlin & Assocs., 435 S.W.3d 871, 891 (Tex. App. Dallas 2014,
pet. denied). This doctrine applies the principles of restitution to disputes that are not governed
by a contract between the parties. It characterizes the result of a failure to make restitution under
circumstances giving rise to an implied or quasi contractual obligation to return those benefits
Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Mims, 405 S.W.3d 319, 339 (Tex. App. Dallas 2013, no pet.). Many
courts have used the term “money had and received” interchangeably with other terms for similar
laims in addition to unjust enrichment, such as assumpsit, implied and constructive contracts
and trusts, and restitution Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Mims, 405 S.W.3d 319, 339 (Tex. App.
Dallas 2013, no pet.); Edwards v. Mid Continent Office, 252 S.W.3d 833, 837 n.7 (Tex. App.
Dallas 2008, pet. denied)]. Courts no longer emphasize these common law labels, but rather look
to the facts alleged and the relief requested Tri State Chemicals v. Western Organics, 83 S.W.3d
189, 193 195 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2002, pet. denied). Courts describe the claim for money had
and received in broad terms. For example, courts have stated that the claim seeks to restore
money when equity and good conscience require restitution; it seeks to determine to which party
in equity, justice, and law the money belongs, and it seeks to prevent an unconscionable loss to
the payor and unjust enrichment to the payee Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Mims, 405 S.W.3d 319,
339 (Tex. App. Dallas 2013, no pet.).
Haase is appalled by the deceptiveness demonstrated by FCCSA which is
furthered by FCCSA not allowing Haase to use any FCCSA Facility, an act that damages and
is malicious toward Haase, as he is a resident of First Colony, deserving to utilize its facilities
Said deception and maliciousness demonstrated by FCCSA reveal FCCSA
violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”).
Said FCCSA deception and maliciousness in violation of Settlement and
Completion force Haase to both amend his claims and seek further discovery; this is discovery
that would both evidence claims of Haase and demonstrate the deception, maliciousness, of
FCCSA. For Haase not to obtain said discovery in support of his amended claims would be to
deprive and/or jeopardize Haase’s Rights at trial. A full and fair discovery is both warranted
and needed; so that, all claims may be tried on the merits, as evidenced,
“Given recent acts of FCCSA and evidence provided by Herman, [Haase] needs
to both amend his claims and seek further discovery in support of his claims
at trial; so that, [Haase’s] Rights a not deprived nor jeopardized, thereby
providing a trial on the merits.” Ex.A ¶
Enforcement of Settlement
19. FCCSA trial demand and motion for summary judgment (“MSJ” Doc. #39)
given Haase’s Settlement and Completion performance violates Texas Law, further
demonstrating FCCSA maliciousness and deceptiveness, Specifically, [i]f the parties have
entered into an enforceable agreement under Rule 11, the court must enforce the agreement
according to its terms Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 234 S.W.3d 642, 651 (Tex. 2007) (trial court had
duty to enforce valid Tex. R. Civ. P. 11 pretrial agreement in which insurer released any potential
claim against defendant); Garcia v. Harding, 545 S.W.3d 8, 13 14 (Tex. App. El Paso 2017, no
pet.) (when parties made Rule 11 agreement, trial court erred in altering its terms and entering
final judgment without providing notice to parties); Whallon v. City of Houston, 462 S.W.3d
146, 162 164 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (when parties entered into Rule 11
agreement that stipulated to entry of agreed judgment on specified terms, trial court erred in
varying terms of judgment); Dallas County v. Rischon Dev. Corp., 242 S.W.3d 90, 93 94 (Tex.
Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (when parties filed Rule 11 agreement that filing deadlines would
be keyed to original summary judgment hearing date, even if that date was subsequently
postponed, and county missed filing deadline as provided in agreement, trial court properly
struck county’s summary judgment response and pleadings). The trial court has a ministerial
duty to enforce a valid Rule 11 agreement Shamrock Psychiatric Clinic P.A. v. Tex. HHS, 540
S.W.3d 553, 61 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 407, 411 412 (Tex. 2018)(per curiam); Fortis Benefits v. Cantu
234 S.W.3d 642, 651 (Tex. 2007); EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias, 934 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tex. 1996);
Whallon v. City of Houston, 462 S.W.3d 146, 161 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.);
In re Caballero, 441 S.W.3d 562, 572 (Tex. App. El Paso 2014, orig. proceeding); In re
Guardianship of the Person & Estate of White, 329 S.W.3d 591, 592 (Tex. App. El Paso 2010,
no pet.); Scott Richter v. Taffarello, 186 S.W.3d 182, 189 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2006, pet.
denied)], and this duty is enforceable by mandamus In re Caballero, 441 S.W.3d 562, 572 577
(Tex. App. El Paso 2014, orig. proceeding) (because parties reached enforceable Tex. R. Civ. P.
11 agreement that was not impossible to perform, trial court had no discretion to refuse to enforce
agreement and mandamus was available to obtain enforcement).
FCCSA has provided no notice of Withdrawal from Settlement or Completion.
Haase is angry, as are his neighbors. FCCSA is hated by many Frist Colony
Residents. FCCSA is described by Haase’s neighbors as “the Ghestapo”.
As much as Haase would prefer to prosecute his claims against FCCSA and
obtain the monetary awards, which are in excess of $800,000, not counting Exemplary
Damages that are near automatic with a DTPA Claim Haase prefers that this Honorable Court
Enforce Settlement, as written; so that, we may all get along with our lives
Prayer
Haase prays that this Honorable Court Enforce the Settlement Agreement executed
between Haase and FCCSA.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
Mr. Richard Alan Haase, Pro Se’
4402 Ringrose Drive
Missouri City, Texas 77459
832
mail: richard@clearvalue.com
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
As evidenced on the court record June 26, 2023, FCCSA is against Settlement in this Cause and
therefore FCCSA opposes this motion.
Richard A. Haase
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June , 20 a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document ha
been served b electronic mail via Texas E File to all parties in this Cause.
Richard A. Haase
CAUSE No.
FIRST COLONY COMMUNITY EXAS DISTRICT COURT
SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INC.
Plaintiff/Counter Defendant
RICHARD ALAN HAASE and
Richard Alan Haase,
Defendants Counter Plaintiffs
JACK MOLHO,
PHYLLIS MURRAY,
SHARON BARBOZA,
ANDREA LEWMAN, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
J.R. ATKINS,
KOLBE CURTICE,
ANDREA LEWMAN,
RICK CONLEY,
JACK WAGNER and
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY
’TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
HAASE’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
DECLARATION
“My name is RICHARD ALAN HAASE and Richard Alan Haase (Haase). I am
Defendant and Counter Plaintiff in Cause 240399; FIRST COLONY
COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION (FCCSA) n the 4 District Court of
Texas I am over the age of eighteen (18) and of sound mind. I reside in Fort Bend County,
Texas. I have never been convicted of a crime and I am fully competent to make this
Declaration. I am not disqualified to testify as a witness in any Court in Texas. I have
personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and they are all true and correct.”
“In settlement agreement (“Settlement”), FCCSA and I agreed,
R. Haase will accept the monetary consideration of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00)
to be paid directly to FCCSA by its insurers on his behalf to resolve this claim, in full
satisfaction of all assessments owed to FCCSA through January 1, 2021 and a portion
of reimbursement to FCCSA for its attorney fees incurred. Upon receipt of this
payment and within thirty (30) days of completion of R. Haase’s repairs to his Property,
FCCSA will then waive the remaining amounts owed from R. Haase’s Association
account balance such that R. Haase’s account balance will be zero dollars ($0.00).
Within three (3) months from the date of execution of this Agreement, R. Haase shall:
(1) Submit to FCCSA for approval plans for painting and/or repairs following the
FCCSA guidelines and processes; (2) paint the exterior of his Property in a color
allowed and approved by FCCSA; (3) remove the mildew and mold from the sides and
front of the exterior of his Property, including his garage door; (4) power wash or
otherwise clean the driveway; and (5) maintain his Property per the applicable FCCSA
governing documents.
3. FCCSA or its insurers on its behalf will fund the settlement payment within thirty (30)
days of completion of the above repairs.
4. Upon the completion of the aforesaid requirements in paragraphs 1 through 3, FCCSA
shall reactivate and restore R. Haase’s facilities privileges.
5. Upon completion of the aforesaid requirements, the Parties shall file with the Court a
Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Counsel for the Association Parties will
prepare the Agreed Motion for R. Haase’s review and execution and the Parties shall
work together to complete this agreed dismissal document.
At the mutual request of the Parties, the terms of settlement are and shall be held
confidential.
7. Each Party is to bear its own attorney fees and costs and costs of Court.
8. Nothing in this Agreement modifies or alleviates R. Haase’s ongoing obligations to
comply with the FCCSA governing documents applicable to his Property. Nothing in
this Agreement modifies or waives the Association’s legal remedies should R. Haase fail
to comply with FCCSA governing documents, rules, regulations, and guidelines in the
future.”
“To my home bee removal costs were over $2,500”.
“To my home, wood replacement and painting near $11,500 (3 quotes)”.
“Briana Herman Herman”) and I conferred, determining
FCCSA had already obtained the $10,000 insurance claim [this is even though
Haase’s items were not as yet complete (an act by FCCSA at is contrary to
Settlement (Supra ; the $10,000 claim was to be after completion.
It was agreed for Haase to complete all items of the Settlement with added
stipulations that: Haase was not required to replace any wood, he was only
required to paint portions of his home needing paint and visible from the street,
and inspection of his home was only to be on agreed upon items with no
additions and would be from the street, as is normal course for FCCSA; as,
FCCSA is not allowed to inspect on property.
Haase would complete within 30 days, weather permitting.”
“FCCSA would not allow Haase access to FCCSA Facilities”.
“In April of 2023, Settlement was modified by conversation between [Haase] and
Briana Herman (Herman), attorney representing FCCSA; wherein agreed completion
items on my home were made (Completion); wherein, it was agreed that [Haase] was
to power wash my driveway and sidewalk, as well as paint [his] home as needed, and
remove any visible mold. It was further agreed that was not required to replace any
wood. It was still further agreed that home inspection would be made from the street,
as is the limit of FCCSA Inspection Ability.”
CCSA’s attorney, Herman, communicated to me that the required items
Completion were not done, Completion was violated by Haase and we must go to trial;
after which, [Haase] communicated to Herman the FCCSA communication a false
representation as completed required items pursuant Completion, demanding pictures
of the FCCSA Inspection; after which, Herman sent 2 pictures: one picture revealed
some mold on paint at the back North West corner of the home; where, it is most
important to note that one could not see from the street; and where, the picture was
obviously taken in my front yard near the West Wall of his home; FCCSA further
complained of and took pictures of vines on the ast all of my home; when, there was
no requirement in Completion for to remove vines.
Regardless of the FCCSA breach and unilateral modification of Completion, to
do not agree, removed the mildew in the back, painted that back portion
home and removed the vines. FCCSA still demands trial, regardless of
ttlement and Completion.”
“Frequent rain, spring showers, delayed Completion to Memorial Day”
“Conversation with Herman provided that FCCSA filed a claim with their insurance
carrier and obtained $10,000; these funds were a part of Settlement and not to be
available to FCCSA until Settlement Completion.”
Signed this Respectfully submitted,
Richard Alan Haase
4402 Ringrose Drive
Missouri City, Texas 77459
832 2385
richard@clearvalue.com
Preview
CAUSE No. FIRST COLONY COMMUNITY EXAS DISTRICT COURT SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INC. Plaintiff/Counter Defendant RICHARD ALAN HAASE and Richard Alan Haase, Defendants Counter Plaintiffs JACK MOLHO, PHYLLIS MURRAY, SHARON BARBOZA, ANDREA LEWMAN, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS J.R. ATKINS, KOLBE CURTICE, ANDREA LEWMAN, RICK CONLEY, JACK WAGNER and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY ’TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT HAASE’S OTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO THE HONORABLE COURT: COMES NOW, RICHARD A. HAASE (persona of the United States Corporation, e.g. United States, Inc. and/or UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) and Richard A. Haase (live individual, as per the original Republic of the United States of America), Defendant and Counter Plaintiff (“Ha Motion for the Court to enforce Settlement Agreement executed between Haase and FIRST COLONY COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION (“FCCS”), Plaintiff/Counter defendant, and JACK defendant, (FCCS and MOLHO are combinedly FCCSA), and Authorities Cases: AMX Enters., Inc. v. Bank One, N.A., 196 S.W.3d 202, 206 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). Barrett v. Ferrell, 550 S.W.2d 138, 143 (Tex. Civ. App. Tyler 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Buccaneer Homes of Ala., Inc. v. Pelis, 43 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). Caballero In re, 441 S.W.3d 562, 572 (Tex. App. El Paso 2014, orig. proceeding). CTTI Priesmeyer, Inc. v. K & O Ltd. P'ship, 164 S.W.3d 675, 683 (Tex.App. Austin 2005, no pet.). Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378, 390 (Tex.2000). Dallas County v. Rischon Dev. Corp., 242 S.W.3d 90, 93 94 (Tex. App. Dallas 2007, pet. denied). Edwards v. Mid Continent Office, 252 S.W.3d 833, 837 n.7 (Tex. App. Dallas 2008, pet. denied). El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Berryman, 858 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Tex.1993). EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias, 934 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tex. 1996). First Title Co. v. Garrett, 860 S.W.2d 74, 78 (Tex.1993). Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 234 S.W.3d 642, 651 (Tex. 2007). Garcia v. Harding, 545 S.W.3d 8, 13 14 (Tex. App. El Paso 2017, no pet.). Guardianship of the Person & Estate of White In re, 329 S.W.3d 591, 592 (Tex. App. El Paso 2010, no pet.). McCullough v. Scarbrough, Medlin & Assocs., 435 S.W.3d 871, 891 (Tex. App. Dallas 2014, pet. denied). Scott Richter v. Taffarello, 186 S.W.3d 182, 189 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied). Shamrock Psychiatric Clinic, P.A. v. Tex. HHS, 540 S.W.3d 553, 61 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 407, 411 412 (Tex. 2018)(per curiam). Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Mims 405 S.W. 319, 339 (Tex.App. Dallas 2013, no pet.). Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Sterling, 822 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tex.1991)). Tri State Chemicals v. Western Organics, 83 S.W.3d 189, 193 195 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2002, pet. denied). Whallon v. City of Houston, 462 S.W.3d 146, 162 164 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.). Response and Amendment This motion is in response to FCCSA refusal to honor a Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”), often referred to as a Rule 11 Agreement after Texas Rule of Civil Procedure (“TRCP”) 11, for all claims in this Cause executed on or about May 11, 2021 with an amended completion April 5, 2023 by Haase and Briana Herman (“Herman” “Completion”). FCCSA, through their legal counsel, stated on the record June 26, 2023 a refusal to accept Completion, as performed by Haase. This motion is further an amendment to Haase’s Amended Objection and Motion for Continuance filed June 26, 2023 (“Amendment”). Authorities and argument in support and form basis of this motion are provided to the court in Amendment. III. Argument In pertinent part in Settlement Haase and FCCSA agre R. Haase will accept the monetary consideration of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) to be paid directly to FCCSA by its insurers on his behalf to resolve this claim, in full satisfaction of all assessments owed to FCCSA through January 1, 2021 and a portion of reimbursement to FCCSA for its attorney fees incurred. Upon receipt of this payment and within thirty (30) days of completion of R. Haase’s repairs to his Property, FCCSA will then waive the remaining amounts owed from R. Haase’s Association account balance such that R. Haase’s account balance will be zero dollars ($0.00). Within three (3) months from the date of execution of this Agreement, R. Haase shall: (1) Submit to FCCSA for approval plans for painting and/or repairs following the FCCSA guidelines and processes; (2) paint the exterior of his Property in a color allowed and approved by FCCSA; (3) remove the mildew and mold from the sides and front of the exterior of his Property, including his garage door; (4) power wash or otherwise n the driveway; and (5) maintain his Property per the applicable FCCSA governing documents. 3. FCCSA or its insurers on its behalf will fund the settlement payment within thirty (30) days of completion of the above repairs. Upon the completion of the aforesaid requirements in paragraphs 1 through 3, FCCSA shall reactivate and restore R. Haase’s facilities privileges. Upon completion of the aforesaid requirements, the Parties shall file with the Court an Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Counsel for the Association Parties will prepare the Agreed Motion for R. Haase’s review and execution and the Parties shall work together to complete this agreed dismissal document. At the mutual request of the Parties, the terms of settlement are and shall be held confidential. Each Party is to bear its own attorney fees and costs and costs of Court. 8. Nothing in this Agreement modifies or alleviates R. Haase’s ongoing obligations to comply with the FCCSA governing documents applicable to his Property. Nothing in this Agreement modifies or waives the Association’s legal remedies should R. Haase fail to comply with FCCSA governing documents, rules, regulations, and guidelines in the future. Ex.A ¶ Haase obtained quotation to have his house painted learning that there were 2 hives and rotted wood in the back of his home “Bee removal costs were over $ ,500” Ex. A ¶ ood replacement and painting near $11,500 (3 quotes)” Ex. A ¶ Therefore, exterior repairs to his home totaled near $1 ,000 an amount that was not planned nor expected. In pertinent part, Haase has in parallel with this Cause suit against numerous nking entities in regard his mortgage, Cause No. 161177 (the “177”) in the Texas 400 District Court (“TX 400 ”) of Fort Bend County. While Haase is aghast at the heinous acts performed by the banks in relation to his mortgage and home and is rather bullish on his legal outcome, he would very much prefer not to invest said $1 ,000 in his home until he knows that he will own it, obviously Communicating the same to FCCSA, Haase and FCCSA been waiting outcome of the ‘177, which is now, most unfortunately, under appeal at the Texas First Court of Appeals (the “TX 1st”) as 01 00854 April 5, 2023 this Honorable Court scheduled a status hearing; wherein, the court asked FCCSA with Brianna H man representing and Haase to ascertain if ettlement could still be completed. H man and Haase conferenced determining (“Completion”) FCCSA had already obtained the $10,000 insurance claim [this is even though Haase’s items were not as yet complete (an act by FCCSA that is contrary to Settlement (Supra))]; the $10,000 claim was to be after completion Ex. A ¶ It was agreed for Haase to complete all items of the Settlement with added stipulations that: Haase was not required to replace any wood, was only required to paint portions of his home needing paint and visible from the street, and inspection of his home was only to be on agreed upon items with no additions and would be from the street, as is normal course for FCCSA; as, FCCSA is not allowed to inspect on property Ex. A ¶ It was agreed that Haase would complete within 30 days, weather permitting Ex. A ¶ “FCCSA would not allow Haase access to FCCSA Facilities” Ex. A ¶ Haase performed Completion, In April of 2023, Settlement was modified by conversation between [Haase] and Briana Herman (Herman), attorney representing FCCSA; wherein agreed completion items on [his] home were made (Completion) where , it was agreed that [Haase] was to power wash [his] driveway and sidewalk, as well as paint [his] ho as needed and remov any visible mold. It was further agreed that [Haase] was not required to replace any wood. It was still further agreed that home inspection would be made from the street, as is the limit of FCCSA Inspection Ability.” Ex.A ¶ FCCSA performed an inspection and breache Completion “FCCSA’s attorney, Herman, communicated [Haase] that the required items in Completion were not done Completion was violated by Haase and we must go to trial; after which, Haase communicated to Herman the FCCSA communication a false representation a completed required items pursuant Completion, demanding pictures of the FCCSA Inspection; after which, Herman sent Haase] 2 pictures: one picture revealed some mold on paint at the back North West corner of the ho ; where it is most important to note that one could not see from the street; and where, the picture was obviously taken in front yard near the West Wall of his ; FCCSA further complained of and took pictures of vines on the East Wall of [his] home; when, there was no requirement ompletion for Haase to remove vines. Ex.A ¶ Regardless of FCCSA breach and unilateral modification of Completion to which [Haase does] not agree, Haase] removed the mildew in the back portion of [his] and removed the vines. FCCSA still demands trial, regardless of Settlement and Completion.” Ex.A ¶ In an evidentiary hearing, Haase will gladly evidence before the court pictures that demonstrate his compliance with Settlement and Completion, both before and after FCCSA’s unilateral modification. As is normally the case in Fort Bend County, it rained frequently and heavily during April and May; such that, Haase did not finish completion until Memorial Day, “Frequent rain, spring showers, delayed Completion Memorial Day” Ex. A ¶ . Compounding matters and demonstrating the greed and deceptiveness of FCCA, FCCSA took monetary advantage of Settlement, obtaining $10,000 from its insurance company, funds that were not to be available until Settlement Completion Supra “Conversation with Herman provided that FCCSA filed a claim with their insurance carrier and obtained $10,000; these funds were a part of Settlement not to be available to FCCSA until Settlement Completion.” To both obtain an insurance claim and continue to seek fees from Haase over the same period violates the One Satisfaction Rule. [T]he longstanding proposition that a plaintiff should not be compensated twice for the same injury CTTI Priesmeyer, Inc. v. K & O Ltd. P'ship, 164 S.W.3d 675, 683 (Tex.App. Austin 2005, no pet.) (citing Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Sterling, 822 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tex.1991)); also, Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378, 390 (Tex.2000). The rule guards against a plaintiff receiving a windfall by recovering an amount in court that covers the plaintiff's entire damages, but to which a settling defendant has already partially contributed. The plaintiff would otherwise be recovering an amount greater than the trier of fact has determined would fully compensate for the injury First Title Co. v. Garrett, 860 S.W.2d 74, 78 (Tex.1993). The one satisfaction rule applies both when several defendants commit the same act and when multiple defendants commit technically different acts that result in the same, single injury AMX Enters., Inc. v. Bank One, N.A., 196 S.W.3d 202, 206 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (citing Casteel, 22 S.W.3d at 390). The application of the rule is not limited to tort claims, and whether the rule may be applied depends not on the cause of action asserted but rather the injury sustained. . (citing El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Berryman 858 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Tex.1993); Stewart Title, 822 S.W.2d at 8). Thus, if the plaintiff has suffered only one injury, even if based on overlapping and varied theories of liability, the plaintiff may only recover once; [t]his is especially true if the evidence supporting each cause of action is the same Buccaneer Homes of Ala., Inc. v. Pelis, 43 S.W.3d 586, 590 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). 14. FCCSA still demands annual fees from Haase, regardless of Completion the $10,000 insurance payment and denial of FCCSA Facilities to Haase during the same period thereby creating a situation of njust nrichment for FCCSA, as well as violation of the One Satisfaction Rule, and harm toward Haase 15. [Haase] may establish that the [$10,000 rightfully belongs to [Haase] by evidence that shows [FCCSA] obtained the money by fraud, duress, or taking an undue advantag Barrett v. Ferrell, 550 S.W.2d 138, 143 (Tex. Civ. App. Tyler 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.). A claim for money already received “belongs conceptually to the doctrine of unjust enrichment” McCullough v. Scarbrough, Medlin & Assocs., 435 S.W.3d 871, 891 (Tex. App. Dallas 2014, pet. denied). This doctrine applies the principles of restitution to disputes that are not governed by a contract between the parties. It characterizes the result of a failure to make restitution under circumstances giving rise to an implied or quasi contractual obligation to return those benefits Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Mims, 405 S.W.3d 319, 339 (Tex. App. Dallas 2013, no pet.). Many courts have used the term “money had and received” interchangeably with other terms for similar laims in addition to unjust enrichment, such as assumpsit, implied and constructive contracts and trusts, and restitution Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Mims, 405 S.W.3d 319, 339 (Tex. App. Dallas 2013, no pet.); Edwards v. Mid Continent Office, 252 S.W.3d 833, 837 n.7 (Tex. App. Dallas 2008, pet. denied)]. Courts no longer emphasize these common law labels, but rather look to the facts alleged and the relief requested Tri State Chemicals v. Western Organics, 83 S.W.3d 189, 193 195 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2002, pet. denied). Courts describe the claim for money had and received in broad terms. For example, courts have stated that the claim seeks to restore money when equity and good conscience require restitution; it seeks to determine to which party in equity, justice, and law the money belongs, and it seeks to prevent an unconscionable loss to the payor and unjust enrichment to the payee Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Mims, 405 S.W.3d 319, 339 (Tex. App. Dallas 2013, no pet.). Haase is appalled by the deceptiveness demonstrated by FCCSA which is furthered by FCCSA not allowing Haase to use any FCCSA Facility, an act that damages and is malicious toward Haase, as he is a resident of First Colony, deserving to utilize its facilities Said deception and maliciousness demonstrated by FCCSA reveal FCCSA violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”). Said FCCSA deception and maliciousness in violation of Settlement and Completion force Haase to both amend his claims and seek further discovery; this is discovery that would both evidence claims of Haase and demonstrate the deception, maliciousness, of FCCSA. For Haase not to obtain said discovery in support of his amended claims would be to deprive and/or jeopardize Haase’s Rights at trial. A full and fair discovery is both warranted and needed; so that, all claims may be tried on the merits, as evidenced, “Given recent acts of FCCSA and evidence provided by Herman, [Haase] needs to both amend his claims and seek further discovery in support of his claims at trial; so that, [Haase’s] Rights a not deprived nor jeopardized, thereby providing a trial on the merits.” Ex.A ¶ Enforcement of Settlement 19. FCCSA trial demand and motion for summary judgment (“MSJ” Doc. #39) given Haase’s Settlement and Completion performance violates Texas Law, further demonstrating FCCSA maliciousness and deceptiveness, Specifically, [i]f the parties have entered into an enforceable agreement under Rule 11, the court must enforce the agreement according to its terms Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 234 S.W.3d 642, 651 (Tex. 2007) (trial court had duty to enforce valid Tex. R. Civ. P. 11 pretrial agreement in which insurer released any potential claim against defendant); Garcia v. Harding, 545 S.W.3d 8, 13 14 (Tex. App. El Paso 2017, no pet.) (when parties made Rule 11 agreement, trial court erred in altering its terms and entering final judgment without providing notice to parties); Whallon v. City of Houston, 462 S.W.3d 146, 162 164 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (when parties entered into Rule 11 agreement that stipulated to entry of agreed judgment on specified terms, trial court erred in varying terms of judgment); Dallas County v. Rischon Dev. Corp., 242 S.W.3d 90, 93 94 (Tex. Dallas 2007, pet. denied) (when parties filed Rule 11 agreement that filing deadlines would be keyed to original summary judgment hearing date, even if that date was subsequently postponed, and county missed filing deadline as provided in agreement, trial court properly struck county’s summary judgment response and pleadings). The trial court has a ministerial duty to enforce a valid Rule 11 agreement Shamrock Psychiatric Clinic P.A. v. Tex. HHS, 540 S.W.3d 553, 61 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 407, 411 412 (Tex. 2018)(per curiam); Fortis Benefits v. Cantu 234 S.W.3d 642, 651 (Tex. 2007); EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias, 934 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tex. 1996); Whallon v. City of Houston, 462 S.W.3d 146, 161 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.); In re Caballero, 441 S.W.3d 562, 572 (Tex. App. El Paso 2014, orig. proceeding); In re Guardianship of the Person & Estate of White, 329 S.W.3d 591, 592 (Tex. App. El Paso 2010, no pet.); Scott Richter v. Taffarello, 186 S.W.3d 182, 189 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2006, pet. denied)], and this duty is enforceable by mandamus In re Caballero, 441 S.W.3d 562, 572 577 (Tex. App. El Paso 2014, orig. proceeding) (because parties reached enforceable Tex. R. Civ. P. 11 agreement that was not impossible to perform, trial court had no discretion to refuse to enforce agreement and mandamus was available to obtain enforcement). FCCSA has provided no notice of Withdrawal from Settlement or Completion. Haase is angry, as are his neighbors. FCCSA is hated by many Frist Colony Residents. FCCSA is described by Haase’s neighbors as “the Ghestapo”. As much as Haase would prefer to prosecute his claims against FCCSA and obtain the monetary awards, which are in excess of $800,000, not counting Exemplary Damages that are near automatic with a DTPA Claim Haase prefers that this Honorable Court Enforce Settlement, as written; so that, we may all get along with our lives Prayer Haase prays that this Honorable Court Enforce the Settlement Agreement executed between Haase and FCCSA. Respectfully submitted, By: Mr. Richard Alan Haase, Pro Se’ 4402 Ringrose Drive Missouri City, Texas 77459 832 mail: richard@clearvalue.com CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE As evidenced on the court record June 26, 2023, FCCSA is against Settlement in this Cause and therefore FCCSA opposes this motion. Richard A. Haase CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June , 20 a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document ha been served b electronic mail via Texas E File to all parties in this Cause. Richard A. Haase CAUSE No. FIRST COLONY COMMUNITY EXAS DISTRICT COURT SERVICES ASSOCIATION, INC. Plaintiff/Counter Defendant RICHARD ALAN HAASE and Richard Alan Haase, Defendants Counter Plaintiffs JACK MOLHO, PHYLLIS MURRAY, SHARON BARBOZA, ANDREA LEWMAN, FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS J.R. ATKINS, KOLBE CURTICE, ANDREA LEWMAN, RICK CONLEY, JACK WAGNER and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY ’TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT HAASE’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DECLARATION “My name is RICHARD ALAN HAASE and Richard Alan Haase (Haase). I am Defendant and Counter Plaintiff in Cause 240399; FIRST COLONY COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATION (FCCSA) n the 4 District Court of Texas I am over the age of eighteen (18) and of sound mind. I reside in Fort Bend County, Texas. I have never been convicted of a crime and I am fully competent to make this Declaration. I am not disqualified to testify as a witness in any Court in Texas. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and they are all true and correct.” “In settlement agreement (“Settlement”), FCCSA and I agreed, R. Haase will accept the monetary consideration of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) to be paid directly to FCCSA by its insurers on his behalf to resolve this claim, in full satisfaction of all assessments owed to FCCSA through January 1, 2021 and a portion of reimbursement to FCCSA for its attorney fees incurred. Upon receipt of this payment and within thirty (30) days of completion of R. Haase’s repairs to his Property, FCCSA will then waive the remaining amounts owed from R. Haase’s Association account balance such that R. Haase’s account balance will be zero dollars ($0.00). Within three (3) months from the date of execution of this Agreement, R. Haase shall: (1) Submit to FCCSA for approval plans for painting and/or repairs following the FCCSA guidelines and processes; (2) paint the exterior of his Property in a color allowed and approved by FCCSA; (3) remove the mildew and mold from the sides and front of the exterior of his Property, including his garage door; (4) power wash or otherwise clean the driveway; and (5) maintain his Property per the applicable FCCSA governing documents. 3. FCCSA or its insurers on its behalf will fund the settlement payment within thirty (30) days of completion of the above repairs. 4. Upon the completion of the aforesaid requirements in paragraphs 1 through 3, FCCSA shall reactivate and restore R. Haase’s facilities privileges. 5. Upon completion of the aforesaid requirements, the Parties shall file with the Court a Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Counsel for the Association Parties will prepare the Agreed Motion for R. Haase’s review and execution and the Parties shall work together to complete this agreed dismissal document. At the mutual request of the Parties, the terms of settlement are and shall be held confidential. 7. Each Party is to bear its own attorney fees and costs and costs of Court. 8. Nothing in this Agreement modifies or alleviates R. Haase’s ongoing obligations to comply with the FCCSA governing documents applicable to his Property. Nothing in this Agreement modifies or waives the Association’s legal remedies should R. Haase fail to comply with FCCSA governing documents, rules, regulations, and guidelines in the future.” “To my home bee removal costs were over $2,500”. “To my home, wood replacement and painting near $11,500 (3 quotes)”. “Briana Herman Herman”) and I conferred, determining FCCSA had already obtained the $10,000 insurance claim [this is even though Haase’s items were not as yet complete (an act by FCCSA at is contrary to Settlement (Supra ; the $10,000 claim was to be after completion. It was agreed for Haase to complete all items of the Settlement with added stipulations that: Haase was not required to replace any wood, he was only required to paint portions of his home needing paint and visible from the street, and inspection of his home was only to be on agreed upon items with no additions and would be from the street, as is normal course for FCCSA; as, FCCSA is not allowed to inspect on property. Haase would complete within 30 days, weather permitting.” “FCCSA would not allow Haase access to FCCSA Facilities”. “In April of 2023, Settlement was modified by conversation between [Haase] and Briana Herman (Herman), attorney representing FCCSA; wherein agreed completion items on my home were made (Completion); wherein, it was agreed that [Haase] was to power wash my driveway and sidewalk, as well as paint [his] home as needed, and remove any visible mold. It was further agreed that was not required to replace any wood. It was still further agreed that home inspection would be made from the street, as is the limit of FCCSA Inspection Ability.” CCSA’s attorney, Herman, communicated to me that the required items Completion were not done, Completion was violated by Haase and we must go to trial; after which, [Haase] communicated to Herman the FCCSA communication a false representation as completed required items pursuant Completion, demanding pictures of the FCCSA Inspection; after which, Herman sent 2 pictures: one picture revealed some mold on paint at the back North West corner of the home; where, it is most important to note that one could not see from the street; and where, the picture was obviously taken in my front yard near the West Wall of his home; FCCSA further complained of and took pictures of vines on the ast all of my home; when, there was no requirement in Completion for to remove vines. Regardless of the FCCSA breach and unilateral modification of Completion, to do not agree, removed the mildew in the back, painted that back portion home and removed the vines. FCCSA still demands trial, regardless of ttlement and Completion.” “Frequent rain, spring showers, delayed Completion to Memorial Day” “Conversation with Herman provided that FCCSA filed a claim with their insurance carrier and obtained $10,000; these funds were a part of Settlement and not to be available to FCCSA until Settlement Completion.” Signed this Respectfully submitted, Richard Alan Haase 4402 Ringrose Drive Missouri City, Texas 77459 832 2385 richard@clearvalue.com