Motion-Secondary: In the Matter of the Marriage of Shannon Marie Hobbs and Ethan Michael Dubose and In the Interest of Gwendolyn Genevieve Dubose

On March 19, 2020 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Hobbs, Shannon Marie, and Dubose, Ethan Michael, for Divorce with Children in the District Court of Montgomery County.

Preview
NO. 20-03-03893

IN THE MATTER OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT
THE MARRIAGE OF

SHANNON MARIE HOBBS
AND 410" JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ETHAN MICHAEL DUBOSE

AND IN THE INTEREST OF
GWENDOLYN GENEVIEVE DUBOSE,
A CHILD MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS

RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO SHANNON HOBBS?’ 15T AMENDED RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO ABATE

COMES NOW, Respondent and Movant, ETHAN MICHAEL DUBOSE, and files this
Respondent’s Response to Shannon Hobbs’ 1st Amended Response in Opposition to Respondent's
Motion to Abate (hereinafter, First Amended Response] and would show:

1 In her First Amended Response, Ms. Hobbs admits the following:

a, Mr. Dubose’s divorce/SAPCR suit was filed in Jefferson County on November 12,
2019, and it was filed before Ms. Hobbs’ divorce/SAPCR suit was filed in
Montgomery County. See Ex. A, First Amended Response, at 2 (“The suit in
Jefferson County was filed first, on November 12, 2019.” “Petitioner DUBOSE
filed his Divorce/SAPCR in Jefferson County on November 12, 2019, despite
neither the child nor the mother ever residing in Jefferson county. Jd. at 3.)

Mr. Dubose’s divorce/SAPCR suit in Jefferson County is still pending. See Ex. A,
First Amended Response, at 1-2 (“There are presently two Divorce/SAPCR
proceedings pending for the same parties and the same child: one divorce filed by
Petitioner DUBOSE in Jefferson County in the 317th District Court in cause
number C-236310....”).

Mr. Dubose’s suit and Ms. Hobbs’ suit involve the same parties and the same
dispute. See Ex. A, First Amended Response, at 1-2 (“There are presently two
Divorce/SAPCR proceedings pending for the same parties and the same child: one
divorce filed by Petitioner DUBOSE in Jefferson County in the 317th District Court
in cause number C-236310, and the suit filed by Petitioner SHANNON HOBBS in
Montgomery County, the residence of the child the subject of this suit and of
SHANNON HOBBS, in Cause No 20-03-03893 in the 41 0th Judicial District Court
of Montgomery County, Texas.”).

2, Per the above admissions, elements one, three, and four of abatement based on dominant
jurisdiction have been established and/or are not in dispute. Thus, the only element in
Dubose/Hobbs — Respondent's Response to Shannon Hobbs’ I Amended Response
Page 1 of 4
dispute is the second element, namely, whether the first suit (the Jefferson County suit)
was filed in a county of proper venue.

Pursuant to section 6.301 of the Texas Family Code, a suit for dissolution should be filed
in the county where either the petitioner or the respondent have resided for the past 90 days,
See Tex. Fam. Code § 6.301. For purposes of determining whether the residency
requirements of section 6.301 have been met, the courts look to a petitioner’s residence at
the time the divorce suit was filed. See, e.g., Inre Rowe, 182. S.W.3d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—
Eastland 2005, orig. proceeding) (“Per the plain language of the statute, residency must be
established as of the date the suit is filed.”); Russell v, Russell, 199 8.W.2d 858, 859 (Tex.
Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1947, no writ.) (“Our courts have uniformly held that a petitioner
for divorce is not required to reside in the county of suit continuously or otherwise up to
the time of trial and the trial court is not deprived of its jurisdiction though the complainant
moves to and resides in another county after filing his original petition.”) (citing Van Dyck
v. Van Dyck, 121 8.W.2d 642, 644 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938, writ dismissed),

Nowhere in her First Amended Response does Ms. Hobbs dispute or controvert the fact
that Mr. Dubose was living in Jefferson County at the time he filed for divorce in Jefferson
County on November 12, 2019.' Nor does Ms. Hobbs dispute or controvert that Mr.
Dubose had resided in Jefferson County for ninety (90) days prior to filing his divorce o:
No vember 12, 2019. In other words, Ms. Hobbs does not appear to dispute the facts Mr.
Dubose has put forward establishing proper venue of the divorce suit he filed in Jefferson
County pursuant to Texas Family Code, section 6.301 (90-days residency in Jefferson
County).

The main thrust of Ms. Hobbs argument seems to be that she believes venue for the whole
suit—both divorce and SAPCR—or for just the SAPCR should be determined by the
residence of the child. This is evidenced by the following statements in her First Amended
Response:

4a, “None reside in Jefferson, even if the residence of Mr. DuBose mattered, which it
does not for purposes of venue for a SAPCR.” Ex. A, First Amended Response, at
2

“Transfer to the county of the child’s residence is mandatory on proper request,
meaning mandamus is a proper remedy if the court refuses to do so.” Ex. A, First
Amended Response, at 5.

“Thus the Jefferson County court having rendered temporary orders in this
case does not cure the problem of DuBose filing in the wrong county, Jefferson,
when he should have filed in the county of residence of the child, Montgomery

! This is without even getting into the law related to what constitutes being a “resident” of a county—i.¢., the fact that
a person does not need to continuously live in a county to establish residence in that county, and that a person can
have more than one county of residence, See Griffith v. Griffith, 341 S.W.3d 43, 53 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011,
no pet.) (stating that “there are no limits on the number of residences that a party may maintain at any one time”).

Dubose/Hobbs — Respondent’s Response to Shannon Hobbs’ I** Amended Response
Page 2 of 4
County.” Ex. A, First Amended Response, at 6.

Venue for a divorce action is determined by Texas Family Code, section 6.301. Venue for
an original SAPCR is determined by Texas Family Code, section 103.001, and sections
6.406/6.407 when a divorce action is in play (mandatory joinder and transfer of SAPCR to
divorce court). Venue for an original SAPCR is proper in the county where the child resides
UNLESS venue is fixed in a suit for dissolution of a marriage under Subchapter D, Chapter
6 (section 6.301 et. seq.). See Tex. Fam. Code § 103.001(a){2). A divorce suit must include
aSAPCR if the parties are parents of a child, see Tex. Fam. Code § 6.406(b), and aSAPCR
filed in a different county than a pending divorce must be transferred to the county where
the divorce is pending. See Tex. Fam. Code § 6.407; In re Marriage of Alien, 593 $.W.2d
133, 137 (Tex. App—Amarillo 1979, no writ), Mr. Dubose believes these are the
controlling statutes that should be used to resolve the venue issue here.

Ms, Hobbs is mistaken in the way she is framing the venue issue, and she is using the
wrong statutes to attempt to resolve the venue issue. In her First Amended Response, Ms.
Hobbs continually refers to sections contained in Chapter 155 of the Texas Family Code,
specifically to section 155.204. Chapter 155 of the Texas Family Code deals with
continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. See Tex. Fam. Code, Chapter 155. Section 155.204
deals with the procedure for transferring a SAPCR from a court of continuing, exclusive
jurisdiction to a court with jurisdiction over a pending divorce between the parents. See
Tex. Fam. Code § 155.204. A court acquires continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in
connection with a child by “the rendition of a final order.” Tex. Fam. Code § 155,001. In
the instant case, the Jefferson County court has not rendered a final order concerning the
child (or the divorce suit) and thus does not have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over
the child. Ms. Hobbs admits or pleads in conformity with this fact in her Montgomery
County Original Petition for Divorce. See Ms. Hobbs’ Original Petition for Divorce, at 2
(“Petitioner and Respondent are parents of the following child of this marriage who is not
under the continuing jurisdiction of any other court.”) (emphasis added). The Jefferson
County court has jurisdiction over matters related to the child because it has jurisdiction
over the divorce suit between the parents. See Tex. Fam. Code §§ 103.001 (a)(2), 6.406(b),
6.407. Ms. Hobbs is operating in the wrong part of the Texas Family Code.

Texas case law supports Mr. Dubose’s position and is contrary to the position being argued
by Mr. Hobbs. In Brown v, Brown, Husband instituted suit in Matagorda County in August
of 1977 in which he sought a divorce from Wife and a determination of conservatorship
for their daughter. See Ex. B, Brown v. Brown, 566 8.W. 2d 378, 379-80 (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi 1978, no writ.). Wife did not file a formal answer but appeared and filed a
plea of privilege in February of 1978 alleging that she and her daughter are residents of
Harris County and that venue lies exclusively in Harris County under the Texas Family
Code, Section 11.04(a) and (c)(3) [now section 103.001]. Jd. at 380. Wife’s plea of
privilege was treated like a motion to transfer under the Texas Family Code pursuant to the
misnomer rule. /d. The trial court denied Wife’s motion to transfer, and Wife appealed. /d.
at 379. In affirming the trial court decision, the appellate court stated that “[t]he residence
of the child is irrelevant when the parent-child suit is initially filed as part of the
divorce action under Section 3.55(b} [now section 6.406].” /d. at 380 (emphasis added),

Dubose/Hobbs — Respondent's Response to Shannon Hobbs’ 1% Amended Response
Page 3 of 4
The court further reasoned that “[t]he mandatory transfer provision of Section 3.55(c) [now
section 6.407] shows that venue is proper for both the divorce and the parent-child
relationship suits in the court which has jurisdiction of the divorce.” Id. Addressing the
policy behind this legislative scheme, the court noted that ‘[f]orum shopping is discouraged
by our appellate courts and is forestalled by statutes providing certainty of venue... .
Certainty of venue is prescribed for divorce cases in Sections 3.21 [section 6.301] and 3.55
{section 6.406] of the Family Code.”

Respectfully Submitted,

JENKINS & KAMIN, LLP
215 Simonton Street
Conroe, Texas 77301
Tel: (936) 703-3127
Fax: (936) 703-5244

By: /s/ John Flud
Adam W. Dietrich
State Bar No. 24056821
adietrich@jenkinskamin.com
Kelly Hughes Norsworthy
State Bar No. 24083583
knorsworthy jenkinskamin.com
John Flud
State Bar No. 24109874
jflud@jenkinskamin.com
Service Only:
ikconroeseryice@jenkinskamin.com
Attorneys for Ethan Dubose

Certificate of Service

I certify that a true copy of this Respondent's Response to Shannon Hobbs’ I Amended

Response in Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Abate was served in accordance with Rule 21a

of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on the following on May 6, 2020:

Robert Reid McInvale

By Electronic Filing Manager reid@mcinvaleattorney.com

/s/ John Flud
John Flud
Attorney for Ethan Dubose

Dubose/Hobbs — Respondent's Response to Shannon Hobbs’ I Amended Response
Page 4 of4
Received and E-Filed for Record
4/29/2020 3:33 PM
Melisa Miller, District Clerk
Montgomery County, Texas
Deputy Clerk, Megan Shiflett

NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS SENSITIVE DATA

NO. 20-03-03893

IN THE MATTER OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT
THE MARRIAGE OF

SHANNON MARIE HOBBS
AND 410TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ETHAN MICHAEL DUBOSE

AND IN THE INTEREST OF
GWENDOLYN GENEVIEVE § MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
DUBOSE, A CHILD § TEXAS

Petitioner SHANNON HOBB’s 1 Amended Response In Opposition to
Respondent’s Motion to Abate

To the Honorable Judge of Said Court:

Comes now SHANNON HOBBS, Petitioner herein, who makes and files this, her

Petitioner SHANNON HOBB’S 1% Amended Response In Opposition to Respondent’s

Motion to Abate, and in support whereof would respectfully show unto the Honorable

Court as follows:

I
Background

SHANNON HOBBS is the Petitioner in the Montgomery county case and is the

Respondent in the Jefferson county case. DuBose is the Petitioner in the Jefferson county

case and the Respondent in the Montgomery county case. There are presently two

Divorce/SAPCR proceedings pending for the same parties and the same child: one

divorce filed by Petitioner DUBOSE in Jefferson County in the 317" District Court in

CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY
EXHIBIT ty District Cler'

iA Heo
year initlals
cause number C-236310, and the suit filed by Petitioner SHANNON HOBBS in

Montgomery County, the residence of the child the subject of this suit and of SHANNON

HOBBS, in Cause No 20-03-03893 in the 410th Judicial District Court of Montgomery

County, Texas, Also, Montgomery County is the new residence of Petitioner DUBOSE

given that he was served papers in the Montgomery County divorce suit at his residence

at 3972 Eagle Nest Lake Lane, Magnolia, Texas 77354, which is in Montgomery County,

Thus it appears that everyone connected to this suit resides in Montgomery County,

Texas. None reside in Jefferson, even if the residence of Mr. DuBose mattered, which it

does not for purposes of venue for a SAPCR.

The suit in Jefferson County was filed first, on November 12, 2019. Jefferson county

Respondent HOBBS was served two days before Thanksgiving during the holidays and

did not appear in court on the hearing date, December 3, 2019, but did timely file her

Answer, Subject to Motion to Transfer and her Motion to Transfer. The court granted

temporary orders based on Respondent’s failure to appear. See attached Answer, Subject

to Motion to Transfer, marked as Exhibit A and attached hereto and incorporated herein

by reference, and Motion to Transfer with attached Affidavit in Support, marked as

Exhibit B and attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Sec attached 2"¢

Amended Motion to Transfer with attached Affidavit in Support, marked as Exhibit C

and attached hereto as incorporated herein by reference.

The court in Jefferson County is requested by SHANNON HOBBS to transfer the suit to

Montgomery County to be consolidated into Cause No. 20-03-03893 in the 410th Judicial
2
CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE
AND CORRECT CO! ry District

“E
ary Clerk
Montg
of,

ment day” year itlalk
District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, in which the divorce filed by HOBBS is

actively pending. A hearing on SHANNON HOBB’s Motion to Transfer is scheduled to

be heard in Jefferson County on May 26, 2020. Respondent in Montgomery county

DuBose, by filing the Motion to Abate, is merely attempting to preclude the Jefferson

County court from transferring the case to where it belongs, in the 410% court in

Montgomery County.

T Statement of Facts

The relevant facts are as follows:

1 Petitioner DUBOSE filed his Divorce/SAPCR in Jefferson County on November
12, 2019, despite neither the child nor the mother ever residing in Jefferson county.

2. Respondent SHANNON HOBBS was served with process issued by the court in
Jefferson County at her residence, which is also the child’s residence, in Montgomery
County on November 26, 2019, two days before Thanksgiving and during the holidays;

3 Respondent SHANNON HOBBS’s answer date was therefore December 17, 2019.
Respondent filed her Answer, Subject to Motion to Transfer along with her Motion to
Transfer with Affidavit in Support of Motion to Transfer, on December 5, 2019. Well
before the answer date.

4 This court held a hearing on temporary orders on December 3, 2019 and rendered.
temporary orders on that date, Respondent HOBBS not having appeared. However,
participating in preliminary motions, like a Motion for Temporary Orders, does not waive
venue under the Family Code. Leder; Greene v. Barker, 806 SW2d 274 (FW 1991, orig.
proceeding).

5 The required deadline for Petitioner DUBOSE to file a controverting affidavit
regarding the Motion to Transfer was December 30, 2019, as per TFC Section 155.204.
Petitioner DUBOSE failed to timely file his controverting affidavit.

5 Respondent SHANNON HOBBS then filed suit for divorce in Montgomery
County on March 19, 2020 in Cause No. 20-03-03893 in the 410th Judicial District Court
of Montgomery County, Texas. Petitioner DUBOSE was served citation in the
3
CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY
Mi ont ery District Cl
of,

day
2X
year
Montgomery County divorce suit on April 4, 2020, despite his desperate attempt to avoid
service of process. He was served at his residence in Montgomery County, as the return
of service, marked as Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.

6 Petitioner DUBOSE finally filed his controverting affidavit, or a document that can
be interpreted as such, on March 19, 2020. Far too late. Further, his controverting
affidavit failed to controvert any of Respondent/Movant HOBBS’ relevant facts. That
document is attached hereto as Exhibit E, incorporated herein by reference.

Therefore, pursuant to TFC 155.204 (c) as discussed herein below, the transfer of this
case is mandatory.

The entry of temporary orders in this case does not grant the Jefferson county court
jurisdiction or make that court the proper venue for this case. See Leder; Greene v.
Barker, 806 SW2d 274 (FW 1991, orig. proceeding).

Further, given that mother, child and even father now live in Montgomery County, this

court is requested to find that the Jefferson County court is a “forum non conveniens” and

convenience requires the transfer to Montgomery County, which the court can do on a

Respondents “timely” motion, Tex. Fam. Code § 155.202(b). This in addition to the fact

that Jefferson county is not the appropriate county for venue in that Divorce/SAPCR.

Ig. Arguments and Authorities

Venue under the Family Code is determined using only the Family Code, not the CPRC,

Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and so the general rule that “failure to file a Motion to

Transfer Venue waived the argument” does not apply. In re CG, 495 SW3d 40 (Corpus

2016, pet. denied); Hurley, 442 SW3d 432 (Dallas 2013, orig. proceeding); Leder, 263

SW3d 283 (Houston Ist 2007, orig. proceeding) (mand. denied). However, in the case

CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY
strict t Cler'

20
initials
pending before this court, SHANNON HOBBS did timely file a motion to transfer in

the Jefferson County court so the issue is mooot.

Transfer to the county of the child’s residence is mandatory on proper request,

meaning mandamus js a proper remedy if the court refuses to do so. Thompson, 434

SW3d 624 (Houston Ist 2014, orig. proceeding) (mand. denied); Bollard v. Berchelmann,

921 SW2d 861 (SA 1996, orig. proceeding). Respondent HOBBS made the proper

request when she filed her Motion to Transfer with an Affidavit in Support of Motion to

Transfer. Petitioner DUBOSE failed to file a controverting affidavit until he filed a

meaningless document on March 19, 2019. One must assume he failed to file a

controverting affidavit because he had no facts with which to argue the point.

Section 155.204 of the Texas Family Code requires as follows:

...(b) Except as provided by Subsection (a) or Section 262.203 , a motion to transfer by a

petitioner or movant is timely if it is made at the time the initial pleadings are filed. A

motion to transfer by another party is timely if it is made on or before the first Monday

after the 20th day after the date of service of citation or notice of the suit or before the

commencement of the hearing, whichever is sooner.

we) Ifa timely motion to transfer has been filed and no controverting affidavit is

fifiled within the period allowed for its filin the proceedin shall, not Jater than the

2 1 st day after the final date of the period allowed for the filing of a controvertin:

affi davit, be transferred without a hearing to the proper court.

CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE
AND CGRRECT COPY
Mont: ary Senily District Clorl
PB Of ame

mont Ge os 18
...(d) On or before the first Monday after the 20th day after the date of notice of a

motion to transfer is served, a party desiring to contest the motion must file a

controverting affidavit denying that grounds for the transfer exist.

In addition to the above, convenience requires transfer to Montgomery county, which can

be done on a “timely” motion, Tex. Fam. Code § 155.202(b); Such timely motion was

made by Respondent HOBBS in the Jefferson county case.

Petitioner is likely to argue that the court has rendered temporary orders and so no

transfer should be permitted. SHANNON HOBBS would show the court that

participating in preliminary motions, like a Motion for Temporary Orders, does not waive

venue under the Family Code. Leder; Greene v. Barker, 806 SW2d 274 (FW 1991, orig.

proceeding). Thus the Jefferson County court having rendered temporary orders in this

case does not cure the problem of DuBose filing in the wrong county, Jefferson, when he

should have filed in the county of residence of the child, Montgomery County.

Given DuBose’s failure to timely file a controverting affidavit in response to SHANNON

HOBB’s Motion to Transfer means that the transfer to Montgomery county is mandatory.

The continued objection to the transfer is merely a delaying tactic and is unconscionable.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner SHANNON HOBBS prays that

the Court deny the DuBose motion to abate and to provide the Jefferson county court the

opportunity to grant her Motion to Transfer, for the reasons set forth herein.

CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY
Montgqmery 'y District Cler'

month:
Gd
Petitioner SHANNON HOBBS prays for such other and further relief, general and

special, at law and in equity, to which she may be justly entitled.

Respectfully Submitted,

Robert Reid McInvale, Jr.
16360 Park Ten Place, Suite 327
Houston, Texas 77084
Tel: (281) 955-1111
Fax: (281) 955-1411

/s/ Robert Reid McInvale, Jr/s/.
State Bar No. 13685900
eid@mcinvaleattorney.com
Counsel for Respondent/Movant HOBB

Certificate of Service

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
served on each attorney of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
on this the 29th day of April, 2020.

/s/Robert Reid McInvale, Jr./s/
Robert Reid McInvale, Jr.

CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY
District Cler)
190)
day
EXHIBIT

CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE

tea
AND CORRECT COPY
NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS SENSITIVE DATA

NO. C-236310

IN THE MATTER OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT
THE MARRIAGE OF

ETHAN MICHAEL DUBOSE
AND 317TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SHANNON MARIE HOBBS

AND IN THE INTEREST OF
G.G.D., A CHILD § JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

RESPONDENT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, SUBJECT TO MOTION TO TRANSFER

SHANNON MARIE HOBBS, Respondent, files this Original Answer to Original Petition

for Divorce, subject to Respondent’s Motion to Transfer. The last three numbers of SHANNON

MARIE HOBBS's driver's license number are x410. The last three numbers of SHANNON

MARIE HOBBS's Social Security number are x735.

d General Denial

Respondent enters a general denial.

Motion to Transfer

Respondent objects to the assumption of jurisdiction and venue by the Court. A motion to

transfer is being filed simultaneously with this answer. The child the subject of this suit has been

domiciled and resided in Montgomery County, Texas for more than six months.

3 Objection to Assignment of Case to Associate Judge

Respondent objects to the assignment of this matter to an associate judge for a trial on the

merits or presiding at a jury trial.

4 Information about Child

Information required by section 154.181(b) and section 154.1815 of the Texas Family

UE 1! of3
CERTIFIED TO BE A TR
AND CO! CoP’
ery District Clerl
Montgi
of,
b i als
mit dey ‘year
Code will be provided upon request from the Court.

5. Attorney's Fees, Expenses, Costs, and Interest

It was necessary for Respondent to secure the services of Robert Reid Mclnvale, a

licensed attorney, to prepare and prosecute this suit. To effect an equitable division of the estate

of the parties and as a part of the division, and for services rendered in connection with

conservatorship and support of the child, judgment for attorney's fees, expenses, and costs

through trial and appeal should be granted against Petitioner and in favor of Respondent for the

use and benefit of Respondent's attorney and be ordered paid directly to Respondent's attorney,

who may enforce the judgment in the attorney's own name. Respondent requests postjudgment

interest as allowed by law.

6. Prayer

Respondent prays that Petitioner take nothing and that Respondent be granted all relief

requested in this Original Answer.

Respondent also prays for attorney's fees, expenses, costs, and interest as requested

above.

CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY 2,
Srey
00

fe yoar I
Respondent prays for general relief.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Reid McInvale
Attomey at Law
16360 Park Ten Place Suite 327
Houston, Texas 77084
Tel: (281) 955-1111
Fax: (281) 955-1411

Robert Reid McInvale
State Bar No. 13685900
Email: reid@meinvaleattorney.com
Attorney for Respondent

Certificate of Service

I certify that a true copy of this Respondent's Original Answer was served in accordance

with rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on the following on December 4, 2019:

Sonya B. Coffman by electronic filing manager.

Yue
Robert Reid McInvale
Attorney for Respondent

CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE 3 of3
AND CORRECT COPY
ntg' ery rey Disti rict Clerk,
Ff,
20
month “dey year inl s
EXHIBIT

CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY
Mi ont, er ¥cout) Distri

“day” ~ year initials
NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS SENSITIVE DATA

NO. C-236310

IN THE MATTER OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT
THE MARRIAGE OF

ETHAN MICHAEL DUBOSE
AND 317TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SHANNON MARIE HOBBS

AND IN THE INTEREST OF
G.G.D., A CHILD § JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MOTION TO TRANSFER

This Motion to Transfer is brought by SHANNON MARIE HOBBS, Respondent, who

requests transfer of this proceeding

1 Jurisdiction

No court has acquired continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of this suit or of the child the

subject of this suit.

2 Grounds for Transfer

The principle residence of the child is in Montgomery County, Texas and has been in that

county during the six-month period preceding the commencement of this suit. Venue is proper in

Montgomery County, Texas. See Respondent’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Transfer

attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length.

3 Prayer

SHANNON MARIE HOBBS prays that notice be issued as required by law. SHANNON

MARIE HOBBS prays that the Court order the transfer of this proceeding in accordance with the

allegations of this motion.

1 of2
CEATIFIED TO BE A TRUE
AND CORRECT C!
ntg 38" 0 Cler

peomnth “ H20) tnitlals
SHANNON MARIE HOBBS prays for general relief.

Respectfully submitted.

Robert Reid McInvale
Attorney at Law
16360 Park Ten Place Suite 327
Houston, Texas 77084
Tel: (281) 955-1111
Fax: (281) 955-1411

Wu
Robert Reid McInvale
State Bar No. 13685900
Email: reid@mcinvaleattorney.com
Attorney for SHANNON MARIE HOBBS

Certificate of Service

I certify that a true copy of this Motion to Transfer was served in accordance with rute

21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on the following on December 4, 2019:

Sonya B. Coffman by electronic filing manager.

YOu
Robert Reid McInvale
Attorney for SHANNON MARIE HOBBS

CERTIFIED TO BE ayTRUE
20f2
AND CO! RECT COPY
Mgnitg' ry BBY District Clerk
of

month yeer initlals
EXHIBIT

CEH MFIED TO BE ATRUE

ap
AND CORRECT GOPY ch jel
Mont ry Distri

mbntt
NO. C-236310

IN THE MATTER OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT
THE MARRIAGE OF

ETHAN MICHAEL DUBOSE
AND 317TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SHANNON MARIE HOBBS

AND IN THE INTEREST OF
G.G.D., A CHILD JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

AFFIDAVIF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER

SHANNON MARIE HOBBS appeared in person before me today and stated under oath:

“My name is SHANNON MARIE HOBBS. Lam above the age of eighteen years, and I

am fully competent to make this affidavit. The facts stated in this affidavit are within my

personal knowledge and are true and correct.

“T am the Respondent in this case. I. SHANNON MARIE HOBBS, am the mother of the

child the subject of this suit. KTHAN MICHAEL DUBOSE is the Petitioner in this case and is

the father of the child the subject of this suit.

“GWENDOLYN GENEVIEVE DUBOSE is the child the subject of this suit and is four

(4) years old.

“The child the subject of this suit, GWENDOLYN GENEVIEVE DUBOSE, and I have

never lived in Jefferson County, Texas. The child and I moved to Montgomery County, Texas in

March 2018 and have lived in Montgomery County, Texas since then continuously for more than

six months and we continue to reside there at 1134 FM 1486 Rd., Magnolia, Texas 77354. Prior

to living in Montgomery County, we lived in Galveston County, Texas.

CEMLFIED TO BE A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY
Montg: ery Cc District Cler!

mom
of.

ay
BH
year ini is
“Therefore, Jefferson County does not have jurisdiction, and this siti beds tobe pursue

‘in Montgomery County. Please transfer this case to Montgomery County, Texas.”
:
3

OHEhN
SHANNON MARIE HOBBS

State of Texas ' §
County of ELD » S&S §

SIGNED under oath before me on Bf. ZL, G

of
whan
GON
bay,
‘ep yy —
Pere df,
s&s
= é
RY Peis
‘
=
Notary Piblic. Races
XO OF a
oad =
0, (BAnee se
ey ie 75 /20%
eeeeni

SS re
ek
ue
-

EXHIBIT :

Coan TO BE A TRUE

Sof
AND CO os COPY
ranger a District Cle

nth af p09 initials
NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS SENSITIVE DATA

NO. C-236310

IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
THE MARRIAGE OF §
§
ETHAN MICHAEL DUBOSE §
AND § 317TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SHANNON MARIE HOBBS §
§
AND IN THE INTEREST OF
G.G.D., A CHILD § JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

2"! AMENDED MOTION TO TRANSFER

This 2nd Amended Motion to Transfer is brought by SHANNON MARIE HOBBS

Respondent, who requests transfer of this proceeding.

1 Jurisdiction

No court has acquired continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of this suit or of the child the

subject of this suit.

2, Grounds for Mandatory Transfer

The principle residence of the child is in Montgomery County, Texas and has been in that

county during the six-month period preceding the commencement of this suit. Respondent

Mother, SHANNON HOBBS, resides in and was served with citation in the above numbered and

entitled cause at her residence in Montgomery County, Texas. Petitioner ETHAN MICHAEL

DUBOSE apparently previously resided in Jefferson county, or so he claims, at the time he filed

suit for divorce. However, he presently lives at 3972 Eagle Nest Lake Lane, Magnolia, Texas

77354, which is in Montgomery County. It is at that address that Petitioner was served citation in

the Montgomery County divorce suit

A divorce/SAPCR suit is pending in Montgomery county, filed by Respondent herein

CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE 1 of3
AND CORRECT COPY
Montg District Cler!
9, 2090
intlals
SHANNON HOBBS. It has Cause Number 20-03-03893 and is actively pending in the 410%

Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas.

Filed simultaneously with this 2" Amended Motion to Transfer is Respondent

SHANNON HOBBS’ Brief in Support of Respondent’s Motion to Transfer. That Brief

establishes the law regarding transfer in cases of this sort. The law is clear that this case should

be transferred to Montgomery County.

See Respondent’s Affidavit in Support of Motion to Transfer attached hereto as Exhibit

A and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length.

3. No controverting affidavit was timely filed in this matter within the prescribed time.

Petitioner finally filed a controverting affidavit about 3 months late, on or about March 17, 2020.

His controverting affidavit deadline was December 30, 2019, but he failed to meet that deadline

and this transfer is mandatory. This issue is also discussed in the Brief in Support of

Respondent’s Motion to Transfer.

4 Prayer

SHANNON MARIE HOBBS prays that notice be issued as required by law. SHANNON

MARIE HOBBS prays that the Court order the immediate transfer of this proceeding in

accordance with the allegations of this motion.

CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY 2 of3
Mont District Clay

AN
month 0°90
year Initials
SHANNON MARIE HOBBS prays for general relief.

Respectfully submitted.

Robert Reid McInvale
Attorney at Law
16360 Park Ten Place Suite 327
Houston, Texas 77084
Tel: (281) 955-1111
Fax: (281) 955-1411

Wu
Robert Reid McInvale
State Bar No. 13685900
Email: reid@meinvaleattorney.com
Attorney for SHANNON MARIE HOBBS

Certificate of Service

I certify that a true copy of this Motion to Transfer was served in accordance with rule

21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on the following on April 8, 2020

Sonya B, Coffman by electronic filing manager.

YOu
Robert Reid McInvale
Attorney for SHANNON MARIE HOBBS

CEHTIFIED TO BE A TRUE
AND oor) Cay COPY 3 of3
Mpntg:
PI

raonth ond ve
EXHIBIT

GERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE

eye
AND CORRECT COPY
Montg: District it

fia0
year
NO. €-236310
IN THE MATTER OF § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
THE MARRIAGE OF

ETHAN MICHAEL DUBOSE
AND 317TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SHANNON MARIE HOBBS

AND IN THE INTEREST OF
G.G.D., A CHILD § JEF

Case Info

Judge

Robin, Jennifer J. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 06, 2020

Case Filing Date

March 19, 2020

County

Parties

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

Motion-Secondary: In the Matter of the Marriage of Shannon Marie Hobbs and Ethan Michael Dubose and In the Interest of Gwendolyn Genevieve Dubose

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties