Preview
CAUSE NO. ___________
JENNIFER PITTSFORD SELZER IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff
V. OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
MILL MAN STEEL, INC.
Defendant JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ERIFIED MERGENCY PPLICATION TO XPUNG IS PENDENS AND FOR
AMAGES AND EES NDER RAC ODE HAPTER 12.
COMES NOW Jennifer Pittsford Selzer, and files this emergency application to expunge
an improper lis pendens and for damages and fees under T RAC ODE HAPTER
12, and, in support thereof, respectfully shows the Court the following:
UMMARY RGUMENT
The Court should order the expungement of an improperlis pendens clouding title
to plaintiff Jennifer Pittsford Selzer’s residence and homestead on an emergency, expedited
basisThe Court should expunge the notice of lis pendensif the Court determines that:
The pleading upon which the notice is based does not contain a real property
clai
The claimant fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the
probable validity of the real property claim; or
The person who filed the notice of lis pendens failed to serve notice on each
par with an interest in the property within three d ays of filing the notice.
ROP ODE 12.007-12.0071 and 41.002 see also Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 50 Tex. Prop.
Code §§ 12.007(d) and Laster v. First Huntsville Properties Co., 826 S.W.2d 125 (Tex.
1991); Jordan v. Hagler, 179 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).
Mill Man Steel, Inc. has filed a lawsuit against Ms. Selzer’s husband Ms. Selzer
is not a party to that awsuit. In conjunction with the lawsuit which seeks recovery only for
breach of a commercial contract and has nothing to do with Ms. S lzer omestead Mill
Man Steel, Inc. filed an improper notice of Lis Pendens against Ms. Selzer’s HomesteadMill
’s attorney has ignored all legal precedent tactic designed to cause financial injury to
Ms. Selzer’s husband (and in the process is damaging Ms. Selzer) Mill Man’s attorney has
refused requests to release the Lis Pendens. To make matters worse Ms. Selzer has a current and
existing contract to sell her homestead by June 20 and a contract to purchase a new home
following the sale of her homestead, and both transactins are at risk of falling through. As a
matter of law and, certainly, in the interests of equity, Mill Man cannot maintain a Lis Pendens
Ms. Selzer’s homestead, and Ms. Selzer requests that the Court enter an order immediately
expunging theLis Pendens
ARTIES
Plaintiff is Jennifer Pittsford Selzer (“Ms. Selzer”), an individual residing in
Harris County, Texas.
Defendant is Mill Man Steel, Inc. (“Mill Man”), a Colorado corporation doing
business in Texas that may be served with process by personal service on its registered agent,
Neil Yoder, at 5580 Sapp Road, nroe, Texas 77304.
URISDICTION ENUE
The Court has jurisdiction over the controversy because it relates to interests in
and title to real property situated within Harris County, Texas and because damages are above
he minimum jurisdictional limitof the Court.
Venue is proper in arris County, Texas under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies
Code § 15.001 because this action involves real property located in Harris County.
ONDITIONS RECEDEN
Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 54, all conditions prec ent to Plaintiff’s claims for
relief have been performed or have occurred.
ACTS
8. On or about July 19, 2022, Ms. Selzer and her husband purchased certain real
property and improvements located at 12903 Taylorcrest Road, Houston, Texas 770, which i
more particularly described as follows:
LOT 17, BLOCK 6, MEMORIAL PLAZA, SECTION 1, ACCORDING TO THE
MAP OR PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 49, PAGE 74 OF THE
MAP RECORDS OF HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS
(the “Homeste ”). See Exhibit A, General Warranty Deed recorded at RP-2022-373955 in the
Real Property Records of Harris County, Texas on July 20, 2022.
9. The Homestead has been Ms. Selzer s sole residence and homestead since she
purchased it in July 2022.
On or about April 26, 2023, Ms. Selzer and her husband executed a TREC ear st
money contract to sell the Homestead (the Taylorcrest Contract”) Ms. Selzer needs the
roceeds from the sal of her Homestead to facilitate the purchase of a new home. The
Taylorcrest Contract ad a n initial closing date of June 9, 2023, and, by a endment, now
equires that closing occur on or before June 20, 2023.
11. On or about June 1, 2023, just over a week before Ms. Selzer s closing date under
the Taylorcrest Contract, Mill Man improperly filed notice of is pendens in the Real Property
Records of Harris County, Texas at RP-2023-200265 (the Lis Pendens”). Exhibit B. The Lis
Pendens identifies Ms. Selzer s Homestead as being subject to a lawsuit filed against er
husband, Daryl M. Selze and Haydin Construction, LLC – Cause No.; 2023-33288 an
Steel, Inc. v. Daryl M. Selzer & Haydin Construction, LLC; in the 334 Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas.See First Amended Petition attached as Exhibit C.
12. Critically, Mill Ma s lawsuit, which ostensibly supports the is Pendens, doe
not include any claims related o a direct interest in the Homestead the Mill Man suit does not
allege any title claims concerning the Homestead or encumbrances fixed by contract to the
omestead, or relate to the provision of materials or labor to the Homestead. See Exhibit C .
13. While required by the T xas Property Code, Ms. Selzer ever received a notice of
Lis Pendens from Mill Man the Texas Property Code mandates notice o Lis Pendens be sent
to all persons with an interest in the property affected by the Lis Pendens within three days of its
filing). Instead, Ms. Selzer learned of the Lis Pendens when the title company closing the
ylorcrest transaction flagged the Lis Pendens and determined closing must be postponed. Said
another way, Ms. Selzer did not learn about the Lis Pendens through any notice of Lis Pendens
rom Mill Man, as required by the Property Code.
14. Currently, the closing of both the Taylorcrest Contract and the subsequent
purchase of Ms. Selzer s new home are postponed. However, neither closing can occur unless
and until the Lis Pendensis remove d from Ms. Selzer s Homestead.
PPLICATION TO XPUNGE IS ENDENS
15. The Court must expunge the Lis Pendens because (i) Mill Man underlying
wsuit does not make claim related to a direct interest in the Homestead, (ii) Mill Man not
laim a direct interest in the Homestead because Mill Man is not a secured purchase money
lender for the Homestead, did not provide materials or labor to the Homestead, and is not a
taxing authority, and (i i) Mill Man failed to serve a copy of the notice of Lis Pendens Ms.
Selzer as required under section 12.007(d) of the Texas Property Code. See Tex. Const. art. XVI,
Tex. Prop. Code § 12.007(d) and see also Laster v. First Huntsville Properties
Co., 826 S.W.2d 125 (Tex. 1991) Jordan v. Hagler, 179 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. App. Fort Worth
2005, no pet.).
The Court mustorder the n otice of Lis Pendensexpunged.
Upon application, the Court should xpunge the notice of Lis Pendens if the Court
determines that:
iv. The pleading upon which the notice is based does not contain a real property
clai
The claimant fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the
probable validity of the real property claim; or
vi. The person who filed the notice of lis pendens failed to serve notice on each
party with an interest in the property within three days of filing the notice.
ROP ODE 12.007 The Court’s determination that any single factor described
above is applicable in this case would necessarily mandate that the Court order the Lis Pendens
filed by Mill expunged. In the instant case, all three grounds requiring expungement of
theLis pendens are present.
Mill Man s underlying action does make any claims related to a direct
terest in the Homestead cannot support the Lis pendens as a matter of
law.
Mill Man Lis pendens is not based on any acceptable direct interest claimed
agains Ms. Selzer s Homestead. Rather, Mill M a constructive trust against the
Homestead for adjudicated , unliquidated damages that it claims against Haydin Construction,
and Ms. Selzer husbanddamages that have absolutely nothing to do with
Selzer omestead See Plaintiff s First Amended Petition, Caus No.; 2023 Mill Man
Steel, Inc. v. Daryl M. Selzer & Haydin Construction, LLC; in the 334 Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas.
At best, Mill Man’s suit alleges y a collateral interest against the Homestead
which is insufficient to support a is pendens against any property, and especially a homestead,
as a matter of law Flores v. Haberman, 915 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. 1995) constructive trust to
satisfy a judgement against a defendant is no more than a collateral interest in the property and a
is pendens is improper Id. It does not matter whether Mill Man alleges hat Ms. Selzer
husband stole funds and used those funds to by the Homestead a scenario th at is
chronologically impossible uch claims still amount to only a collateral interest in the
Homestead that cannot support a notice of is pendens Flores v. Haberman, 915 S.W.2d 477
(Tex. 1995) (holding lis pendens filed by parties in conversion action against property owner
whoallegedly purchased roperties with converted funds were improper).
13. Accordingly, Mill Man has not pleaded a real property claim against the
Homestead sufficient to sustain the Lis pendens, and the Court must order the Lis pendens
expunged. T ROP ODE )(1).
Mill Man cannot establish the probable validity of a real property claim
against the Homestead because Mill Man is not a secured purchase money
lender, a contractor enfor ing a mechanics and materialman’s lien, or a
taxing author .
14. The home stead of a single adult or family is protected from collateral attack for
the payment of a debt unless the debt is for an encumbrance on the property. encumbrance
may be properly fixed to real property claimed as a homestead in relation to: 1) purchas
money on the homestead, 2) work and materials used to construct improvements on the
homestead (where there s a written contract to do so), or 3) unpaid taxes. Tex. Const. art. XVI, §
50; Tex. Prop. Code § 41.002 Laster v. First Huntsville Properties Co 826 S.W.2d 125 (Tex.
Jordan v. Hagler , 179 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. App.Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).
Mill Man is not a secured purchase money lender, a contractor enforcing a
mechanics and materialman’s lien, or a taxing authority. Mill Man simply cannot legitimately
plead any causes of action that relate to a constitutionally acceptable direct interest in the
Homestead sufficient to support the Lis Pendens Id.
Accordingly, Mill Man cannot establish the probable validity of a real property
claim against the Homestead preponderance of the evidence he Court should order the
notice of Lis Pendensexpunged. Tex. Prop. Code § 12.0071(c)(2).
Mill Manfailed to serve notice on each party with an interestin the
property within three days of filing the notice
Mill Man failed to notify Ms. Selzer that the Lis pendens aff ting her Homestead
had been filed in the real property records as required by the Property Code Pursuant to
ROP ODE 12.00 the person filing a notice of lis pendens must serve a copy of the
notice on each party who has an interest in the real property affected by the notice Ms. Selzer is
owner and/or holder of an interest in the Homestead Exhibit Under the statute, Mill Man
was obligated to notify any person with an interest in the Homestead within three days of filing
the notice of is endens affecting the Homestead Id. Mill Man wholly failed to notify Ms.
Selzer
Accordingly, the Court must order the Lis endens expunged. Tex. Prop. Code
12.0071(c)(3).
e Court should award Ms. Selzeractual damages , exemplary damagesand
attorney’s fees pursuant to RAC .002.
Mill Man is liable to Ms. Selzer or damages, attorney’s fees and costs of court.
person whomakes, presents, or uses a d ocument or other record with
(1) knowledge that the document or record is a fraudulent lien or claim against real
property or an interest in real property;
(2) intent that the document or record be given the same legal effect as a document or
record evidencing a valid lien or claim against real property or an interest in real
property; and
(3) intent to cause another person to suffer financial injury or emotional
istress
is liable for the greater of $10,000 or actual damages caused by the violation, court costs,
reasonable attorney’s fees, and exemplary damages in an amount determined by the court.
RAC 12.002 a)(b).
In the instant case n information and belief Mill Man filed he Lis endens
affecting the Homestead in order to roperly create leverage and gain the upper hand in
igation unrelated to any direct interest in the Homestead. Mill Man nefarious intent is
apparent sed on the simple truth that its suit does not identify Ms. Selzer as an owner of the
Homestead fact easily discernable in the Real Property Records of Harris County, Texas
(where the Lis endens was filed) or mention that the Homestead is Ms. Selzer s residence and
homestead.
Mill Man s suit, however, does indicate Mill Man is aware of a pending sale of
the Homestead. See Exhibit C t ¶ 44 There can be no doubt based on the allegations in Mill
s suit and timing of the filing of the Lis endens that Mill Man intended to frustrate Ms.
Selzer s sale f the Homes tead. frustrating this sale, Mill Man intended to cause Ms.
Selzer (and any party with an interest in the Homestead, who may also care about Ms. Selzer
well-being) financial injury and hardship.
22. Accordingly, Mill Man is in violation of RAC 12.002 and
liable to Ms. Selzer for the greater of $10,000 or actual damages caused by the violation, court
costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and exemplary damages.
ONCLUSION
23. The Court should immediately expunge the Lis Pendens because Mill Man has no
claim against the omestead cannot legally articulate a constitutionally acceptable claim against
the Homestead, and failed to serve notice on Ms. Selzer as required by the Texas Property Code.
Because Mill Man violated T RAC 12.002, the Court should also award
Selzer statutory or actual damages, exemplary damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of
court.
Moreover, the Court should consider this application and expunge the Lis
Pendens on an expedited, emergency basis because the Lis Pendens continues to act as a barrier
to both of Ms. Selzer’s real property transactions, both of which are set to close imminently, and
both of whichare likely to fall apart, irreparably, if the Lis Pendensis not timely removed.
RAYER
For these reasons, Ms. Selzer respectfully prays the Court to grant h application and
order that:
the Lise Pendensaffecting the Homestead is immediately expunged; and
Mill Man shall pay Ms. Selzer the greater of her actual or statutory
damages;
exemplary damages;
iv. attorney’s fees;
costs of court; and
vi. Ms. Selzer shall receive any such other and further relief as to which Ms.
Selzershall show self entitled.
espectfully submitted,
Hanszen Laporte, LLP
By: /s/ Matthew S.C. Hansel
Matthew S.C. Hansel
Texas Bar No. 24092480
Mhansel@hanszenlaporte.com
14201 Memorial Drive
Houston, Texas 77079
Tel. (713) 522-9444
Fax. (713) 524-2580
ATTORNEY FOR
JENNIFER PITTSFORD SELZER
Preview
CAUSE NO. ___________ JENNIFER PITTSFORD SELZER IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff V. OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS MILL MAN STEEL, INC. Defendant JUDICIAL DISTRICT ERIFIED MERGENCY PPLICATION TO XPUNG IS PENDENS AND FOR AMAGES AND EES NDER RAC ODE HAPTER 12. COMES NOW Jennifer Pittsford Selzer, and files this emergency application to expunge an improper lis pendens and for damages and fees under T RAC ODE HAPTER 12, and, in support thereof, respectfully shows the Court the following: UMMARY RGUMENT The Court should order the expungement of an improperlis pendens clouding title to plaintiff Jennifer Pittsford Selzer’s residence and homestead on an emergency, expedited basisThe Court should expunge the notice of lis pendensif the Court determines that: The pleading upon which the notice is based does not contain a real property clai The claimant fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim; or The person who filed the notice of lis pendens failed to serve notice on each par with an interest in the property within three d ays of filing the notice. ROP ODE 12.007-12.0071 and 41.002 see also Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 50 Tex. Prop. Code §§ 12.007(d) and Laster v. First Huntsville Properties Co., 826 S.W.2d 125 (Tex. 1991); Jordan v. Hagler, 179 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). Mill Man Steel, Inc. has filed a lawsuit against Ms. Selzer’s husband Ms. Selzer is not a party to that awsuit. In conjunction with the lawsuit which seeks recovery only for breach of a commercial contract and has nothing to do with Ms. S lzer omestead Mill Man Steel, Inc. filed an improper notice of Lis Pendens against Ms. Selzer’s HomesteadMill ’s attorney has ignored all legal precedent tactic designed to cause financial injury to Ms. Selzer’s husband (and in the process is damaging Ms. Selzer) Mill Man’s attorney has refused requests to release the Lis Pendens. To make matters worse Ms. Selzer has a current and existing contract to sell her homestead by June 20 and a contract to purchase a new home following the sale of her homestead, and both transactins are at risk of falling through. As a matter of law and, certainly, in the interests of equity, Mill Man cannot maintain a Lis Pendens Ms. Selzer’s homestead, and Ms. Selzer requests that the Court enter an order immediately expunging theLis Pendens ARTIES Plaintiff is Jennifer Pittsford Selzer (“Ms. Selzer”), an individual residing in Harris County, Texas. Defendant is Mill Man Steel, Inc. (“Mill Man”), a Colorado corporation doing business in Texas that may be served with process by personal service on its registered agent, Neil Yoder, at 5580 Sapp Road, nroe, Texas 77304. URISDICTION ENUE The Court has jurisdiction over the controversy because it relates to interests in and title to real property situated within Harris County, Texas and because damages are above he minimum jurisdictional limitof the Court. Venue is proper in arris County, Texas under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 15.001 because this action involves real property located in Harris County. ONDITIONS RECEDEN Pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 54, all conditions prec ent to Plaintiff’s claims for relief have been performed or have occurred. ACTS 8. On or about July 19, 2022, Ms. Selzer and her husband purchased certain real property and improvements located at 12903 Taylorcrest Road, Houston, Texas 770, which i more particularly described as follows: LOT 17, BLOCK 6, MEMORIAL PLAZA, SECTION 1, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 49, PAGE 74 OF THE MAP RECORDS OF HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS (the “Homeste ”). See Exhibit A, General Warranty Deed recorded at RP-2022-373955 in the Real Property Records of Harris County, Texas on July 20, 2022. 9. The Homestead has been Ms. Selzer s sole residence and homestead since she purchased it in July 2022. On or about April 26, 2023, Ms. Selzer and her husband executed a TREC ear st money contract to sell the Homestead (the Taylorcrest Contract”) Ms. Selzer needs the roceeds from the sal of her Homestead to facilitate the purchase of a new home. The Taylorcrest Contract ad a n initial closing date of June 9, 2023, and, by a endment, now equires that closing occur on or before June 20, 2023. 11. On or about June 1, 2023, just over a week before Ms. Selzer s closing date under the Taylorcrest Contract, Mill Man improperly filed notice of is pendens in the Real Property Records of Harris County, Texas at RP-2023-200265 (the Lis Pendens”). Exhibit B. The Lis Pendens identifies Ms. Selzer s Homestead as being subject to a lawsuit filed against er husband, Daryl M. Selze and Haydin Construction, LLC – Cause No.; 2023-33288 an Steel, Inc. v. Daryl M. Selzer & Haydin Construction, LLC; in the 334 Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.See First Amended Petition attached as Exhibit C. 12. Critically, Mill Ma s lawsuit, which ostensibly supports the is Pendens, doe not include any claims related o a direct interest in the Homestead the Mill Man suit does not allege any title claims concerning the Homestead or encumbrances fixed by contract to the omestead, or relate to the provision of materials or labor to the Homestead. See Exhibit C . 13. While required by the T xas Property Code, Ms. Selzer ever received a notice of Lis Pendens from Mill Man the Texas Property Code mandates notice o Lis Pendens be sent to all persons with an interest in the property affected by the Lis Pendens within three days of its filing). Instead, Ms. Selzer learned of the Lis Pendens when the title company closing the ylorcrest transaction flagged the Lis Pendens and determined closing must be postponed. Said another way, Ms. Selzer did not learn about the Lis Pendens through any notice of Lis Pendens rom Mill Man, as required by the Property Code. 14. Currently, the closing of both the Taylorcrest Contract and the subsequent purchase of Ms. Selzer s new home are postponed. However, neither closing can occur unless and until the Lis Pendensis remove d from Ms. Selzer s Homestead. PPLICATION TO XPUNGE IS ENDENS 15. The Court must expunge the Lis Pendens because (i) Mill Man underlying wsuit does not make claim related to a direct interest in the Homestead, (ii) Mill Man not laim a direct interest in the Homestead because Mill Man is not a secured purchase money lender for the Homestead, did not provide materials or labor to the Homestead, and is not a taxing authority, and (i i) Mill Man failed to serve a copy of the notice of Lis Pendens Ms. Selzer as required under section 12.007(d) of the Texas Property Code. See Tex. Const. art. XVI, Tex. Prop. Code § 12.007(d) and see also Laster v. First Huntsville Properties Co., 826 S.W.2d 125 (Tex. 1991) Jordan v. Hagler, 179 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). The Court mustorder the n otice of Lis Pendensexpunged. Upon application, the Court should xpunge the notice of Lis Pendens if the Court determines that: iv. The pleading upon which the notice is based does not contain a real property clai The claimant fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim; or vi. The person who filed the notice of lis pendens failed to serve notice on each party with an interest in the property within three days of filing the notice. ROP ODE 12.007 The Court’s determination that any single factor described above is applicable in this case would necessarily mandate that the Court order the Lis Pendens filed by Mill expunged. In the instant case, all three grounds requiring expungement of theLis pendens are present. Mill Man s underlying action does make any claims related to a direct terest in the Homestead cannot support the Lis pendens as a matter of law. Mill Man Lis pendens is not based on any acceptable direct interest claimed agains Ms. Selzer s Homestead. Rather, Mill M a constructive trust against the Homestead for adjudicated , unliquidated damages that it claims against Haydin Construction, and Ms. Selzer husbanddamages that have absolutely nothing to do with Selzer omestead See Plaintiff s First Amended Petition, Caus No.; 2023 Mill Man Steel, Inc. v. Daryl M. Selzer & Haydin Construction, LLC; in the 334 Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. At best, Mill Man’s suit alleges y a collateral interest against the Homestead which is insufficient to support a is pendens against any property, and especially a homestead, as a matter of law Flores v. Haberman, 915 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. 1995) constructive trust to satisfy a judgement against a defendant is no more than a collateral interest in the property and a is pendens is improper Id. It does not matter whether Mill Man alleges hat Ms. Selzer husband stole funds and used those funds to by the Homestead a scenario th at is chronologically impossible uch claims still amount to only a collateral interest in the Homestead that cannot support a notice of is pendens Flores v. Haberman, 915 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. 1995) (holding lis pendens filed by parties in conversion action against property owner whoallegedly purchased roperties with converted funds were improper). 13. Accordingly, Mill Man has not pleaded a real property claim against the Homestead sufficient to sustain the Lis pendens, and the Court must order the Lis pendens expunged. T ROP ODE )(1). Mill Man cannot establish the probable validity of a real property claim against the Homestead because Mill Man is not a secured purchase money lender, a contractor enfor ing a mechanics and materialman’s lien, or a taxing author . 14. The home stead of a single adult or family is protected from collateral attack for the payment of a debt unless the debt is for an encumbrance on the property. encumbrance may be properly fixed to real property claimed as a homestead in relation to: 1) purchas money on the homestead, 2) work and materials used to construct improvements on the homestead (where there s a written contract to do so), or 3) unpaid taxes. Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 50; Tex. Prop. Code § 41.002 Laster v. First Huntsville Properties Co 826 S.W.2d 125 (Tex. Jordan v. Hagler , 179 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. App.Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). Mill Man is not a secured purchase money lender, a contractor enforcing a mechanics and materialman’s lien, or a taxing authority. Mill Man simply cannot legitimately plead any causes of action that relate to a constitutionally acceptable direct interest in the Homestead sufficient to support the Lis Pendens Id. Accordingly, Mill Man cannot establish the probable validity of a real property claim against the Homestead preponderance of the evidence he Court should order the notice of Lis Pendensexpunged. Tex. Prop. Code § 12.0071(c)(2). Mill Manfailed to serve notice on each party with an interestin the property within three days of filing the notice Mill Man failed to notify Ms. Selzer that the Lis pendens aff ting her Homestead had been filed in the real property records as required by the Property Code Pursuant to ROP ODE 12.00 the person filing a notice of lis pendens must serve a copy of the notice on each party who has an interest in the real property affected by the notice Ms. Selzer is owner and/or holder of an interest in the Homestead Exhibit Under the statute, Mill Man was obligated to notify any person with an interest in the Homestead within three days of filing the notice of is endens affecting the Homestead Id. Mill Man wholly failed to notify Ms. Selzer Accordingly, the Court must order the Lis endens expunged. Tex. Prop. Code 12.0071(c)(3). e Court should award Ms. Selzeractual damages , exemplary damagesand attorney’s fees pursuant to RAC .002. Mill Man is liable to Ms. Selzer or damages, attorney’s fees and costs of court. person whomakes, presents, or uses a d ocument or other record with (1) knowledge that the document or record is a fraudulent lien or claim against real property or an interest in real property; (2) intent that the document or record be given the same legal effect as a document or record evidencing a valid lien or claim against real property or an interest in real property; and (3) intent to cause another person to suffer financial injury or emotional istress is liable for the greater of $10,000 or actual damages caused by the violation, court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and exemplary damages in an amount determined by the court. RAC 12.002 a)(b). In the instant case n information and belief Mill Man filed he Lis endens affecting the Homestead in order to roperly create leverage and gain the upper hand in igation unrelated to any direct interest in the Homestead. Mill Man nefarious intent is apparent sed on the simple truth that its suit does not identify Ms. Selzer as an owner of the Homestead fact easily discernable in the Real Property Records of Harris County, Texas (where the Lis endens was filed) or mention that the Homestead is Ms. Selzer s residence and homestead. Mill Man s suit, however, does indicate Mill Man is aware of a pending sale of the Homestead. See Exhibit C t ¶ 44 There can be no doubt based on the allegations in Mill s suit and timing of the filing of the Lis endens that Mill Man intended to frustrate Ms. Selzer s sale f the Homes tead. frustrating this sale, Mill Man intended to cause Ms. Selzer (and any party with an interest in the Homestead, who may also care about Ms. Selzer well-being) financial injury and hardship. 22. Accordingly, Mill Man is in violation of RAC 12.002 and liable to Ms. Selzer for the greater of $10,000 or actual damages caused by the violation, court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and exemplary damages. ONCLUSION 23. The Court should immediately expunge the Lis Pendens because Mill Man has no claim against the omestead cannot legally articulate a constitutionally acceptable claim against the Homestead, and failed to serve notice on Ms. Selzer as required by the Texas Property Code. Because Mill Man violated T RAC 12.002, the Court should also award Selzer statutory or actual damages, exemplary damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of court. Moreover, the Court should consider this application and expunge the Lis Pendens on an expedited, emergency basis because the Lis Pendens continues to act as a barrier to both of Ms. Selzer’s real property transactions, both of which are set to close imminently, and both of whichare likely to fall apart, irreparably, if the Lis Pendensis not timely removed. RAYER For these reasons, Ms. Selzer respectfully prays the Court to grant h application and order that: the Lise Pendensaffecting the Homestead is immediately expunged; and Mill Man shall pay Ms. Selzer the greater of her actual or statutory damages; exemplary damages; iv. attorney’s fees; costs of court; and vi. Ms. Selzer shall receive any such other and further relief as to which Ms. Selzershall show self entitled. espectfully submitted, Hanszen Laporte, LLP By: /s/ Matthew S.C. Hansel Matthew S.C. Hansel Texas Bar No. 24092480 Mhansel@hanszenlaporte.com 14201 Memorial Drive Houston, Texas 77079 Tel. (713) 522-9444 Fax. (713) 524-2580 ATTORNEY FOR JENNIFER PITTSFORD SELZER