Preview
FILED: 3/16/2016 3:28:52 PM
SHERRI ADELSTEIN
Denton County District Clerk
By: Jennifer Stout, Deputy
CAUSE NO. 2013-71458-431
NORTH TEXAS AUTO SALES, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
LLC,
Plaintiff
Vv. 442%” JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PAT LYNCH,
Defendant DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
COMES NOW, PAT LYNCH, Defedant in the above-styled cause of action, and
files his Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by NORTH TEXAS AUTO
SALES, LLC (hereinafter “North Texas” or “Plaintiff’), and would respectfully show as follows:
1
SUMMARY OF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE
In its Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”), Plainitff offers nothing more than a
series of unproven legal conclusions as “evidence” to support its cause of action for an alleged
breach of contract. Plaintiff offers no contract, and offers no evidence of the existence of even
one of the elements of any valid and enforceable contract, and specifically fails to prove the
existence of a contract for the loan of money. The plain reason for Plaintiffs failure to produce
a valid and enforceable contract is that no such contract exists or has ever existed.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 1
2.
OBJECTIONS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
21 The procedure known as “Summary Judgment” allows for the early determination
of some or all of the claims and defenses raised by the pleadings in a case, without a full-scale
trial. It provides a speedy means for the disposition of controversies that do not present fact
issues in the efficient elimination of patently unmeritorious claims and untenable defenses. The
summary judgment proceeding is not intended to be a trial by exhibits and affidavits; rather, it is
a device to determine whether genuine issues exist for determination by the trier of fact. In order
for a summary judgment to be granted, all factual issues must be eliminated.
22 In its Motion and Affidavit, Plaintiff, by and through its authorized representative,
Ashley Cope Celedonia, makes no proper attempt to show the Court that no factual issues are
present. Instead, Plaintff simply regurgitates its groundless allegations in a poor attempt to
disguise them as indisupteable facts.
2.3 Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Motion in its entirety because said Motion does
not expressly state anywhere therein the grounds on which the Motion is sought. Therefore, the
Motion is legally insufficient. Any relied attempt by Plaintiff to state therein the grounds on
which the Motion is filed, is unclear, vague, and ambiguous.
3
OBJECTIONS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE
3.1. Objection to Use of Pleadings. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs use of factual
allegations in its Original Petition and Motion as summary judgment proof. A a party cannot
rely on factual statements contained in its own petition or answer as summary-judgment proof.
Hidalgo v. Surety S&L Ass'n, 462 8.W.2d 540, 545 (Tex. 1971)). An affidavit that is nothing
more than a sworn repetition of the allegations in the pleadings is conclusory and has no
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 2
probative force. Brookshire Katy Drainage Dist. v. Lily Gardens, LLC, 333 S.W.3d 301, 308
(Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). Affiant des &, sworn statements” are nothing
more than mere regurgitations of the allegations contained in both its’ Original Petition and
Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the statements constitue improper summary
judgment proof.
32. Objection to the “Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment” of Ashley Cope Celedonia — Factual Conclusion. Defendant objects to the
“Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment” of Ashley Cope Celedonia
as an exhibit to Plaintiff's Motion on grounds that it contains factual conclusions. Affidavits
must be based upon facts and cannot merely recite factual conclusions. Conclusory statements
that are not supported by facts are not proper summary judgment proof. See McIntyre v.
Ramirez, 109 S.W.3d 741, 749-50 (Tex. 2003); Purcell v. Bellinger, 940 S.W.2d 599, 602 (Tex.
1997). Unsupported conclusory statements are not credible and are not susceptible to being
readily controverted. Ryland Group v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Tex. 1996); See Tex. R. Civ.
P. 166a(c). Specifically, Plaintiff's statement that, “Plaintiff financed $200,000.00 of vehicles of
and for the benefit of Defendant . . .” (Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support, p.1) is an improper and
unsupported factual conclusion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support of its Motion
constitues improper summary judgment proof and Defendant’s objection should be sustained.
3.3. Objection to the “Affidavit in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment” of Ashley Cope Celedonia — Legal Conclusion. Defendant objects to the
“Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment” of Ashley Cope Celedonia
as an exhibit to Plaintiffs Motion on grounds that it contains legal conclusions. Affidavits must
state facts and cannot merely recite legal conclusions. Brownlee v. Brownlee, 665 S.W.2d 111,
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 3
112 (Tex. 1984). Legal conclusions in affidavits have no probative force. 801 Nolana, Inc. v.
RTC Mortg. Trust, 944 S.W.2d 751, 754 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi, 1997, writ denied).
Specifically, the following statements constitue nothing more than legal conclusions:
“Plaintiff and Defendant had a fully enforceable agreement involving the purchasing and
financing of vehicles”;
“Plaintiff financed $200,000.00 of vehicles of and for the benefit of Defendant for which
Defendant became liable for repayment”;
“After demand and all other conditions precedent have been met, Defendant has
breached the agreement by failing and refusing to pay the $200,000.00 owed to Plaintiff”; and
“Afier all just and lawful offsets, Defendant owes Plaintiff $200,000.00”
(Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support, p.1). Each such statement constitutes an improper legal
conclusion. Both the existence and enforceability of a contract between parties is a legal
conclusion. Legal conclusions are not proper summary judgment proof. Harris v. Varo, Inc.,
814 S.W.2d 520, 523 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1991) (quoting Simpson v. MBank Dallas, N.A., 724
S.W.2d 102, 108 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1987, writ refd n.r.e.). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Affidavit in
Support of its Motion constitues improper summary judgment proof and Defendant’s objection
should be sustained.
4
EXISTENCE OF GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT
REGARDING EXISTENCE OF A VALID AND ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT
4.1 To be entitled to summary judgment on its breach of contract claim, Plaintiff must
prove, as a matter of law, the essential elements ofa breach of contract claim: (1) the existence
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 4
of a valid contract; (2) performance or tendered performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach of the
contract by the defendant; (4) damages sustained as a result of the breach. Winchek vy. American
Exp. Travel Related Services Co., Inc., 232 S.W.3d 197, 202 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.];
see also Prime Products, Inc. v. S.S.1. Plastics, Inc., 97 8.W.3d 631, 636 (Tex. App. — Houston
[1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of
any of the essential elelments of a breach of contract claim.
4.2. No Contract. Plaintiff has produced no evidence of the existence of a contract.
Parties form a binding contract when the following elements are present: (1) an offer, (2) an
acceptance in strict compliance with the terms of the offer, (3) meeting of the minds, (4) each
party’s consent to the terms, and (5) execution and delivery of the contract with the intent that it
be mutual and binding. /d. To be enforceable, a contract must be sufficiently certain to enable a
court to determine the rights and responsibilities of the parties. 7.0. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of
El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218, 221 (Tex.1992). As evidentiary support for its motion for summary
judgment, Plaintiff simply attached the affidavit of its owner, Ashley Cope Celedonia, who does
nothing more than regurgitate the allegations of Plaintiff's Original Petition and Motion. As
demonstrated in the objections above, this does not constitute competent summary judgment
proof. In contrast, Defendant attaches his own affidavit in support as Exhibit “A”, and
incorporates the same by reference herein as if recited verbatim in full. Defendant’s affidavit is
based on his personal knowledge and dealings with Planitiff, and establishes that Plainitff and
Defendant never entered into a contract of any sort.
4.3. No Conract to Loan Money. Plaintiff's allegations that “Plainitff financed
$200,000.00 of vehicles of and for the benefit of Defendant, for which Defendant became liable
for repayment,” is wholly without merit. In a contract to loan money, the material terms will
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 5
generally be: the amount to be loaned, maturity date of the loan, the interest rate, and the
repayment terms. TO Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218, 221 (Tex. 1992)
(citing Wheeler v. White, 398 S.W.2d 93, 95 (Tex. 1965)). Plaintiff has produced no such
evidence. Further, as demonstrated by the affidavit of Defendant attached hereto as Exhibit “A”
and incorporated by reference herein as if recited verbatim in full, Defendant has no knowledge
of any such agreement and further demonstrates that no such agreement ever existed.
5.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has alleged a breach of contract, yet has utterly failed to produced any evidence
ofa contract — or even one element ofa contract — existent between the parties. The entireity of
Plaintiff's summary judgment evidence is without any probative force, as it is wrought with
nothing more than an improper repetition of Plaintiffs allegations contined in its Original
Petition and Motion. As a result, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the parties
ever entered intoa valid and enforceable contract.
6.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that this Court DENY
Plantiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, assess the Defendant’s costs and attorney’s fees
against Plaintiff, as well as all other relief to which they may show themselves justly entitled at
law or equity.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 6
Respectfully submitted,
PRATT BOOK, PLLC
/S/Lorne C. Book
Lorne C. Book, Attorney
Texas State Bar No. 24073360
2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 505
Frisco, Texas 75034
Tel. (972) 712-1515
Fax. (972) 712-2832
Email:lbook@prattbook.com
Attorney for Pat Lynch
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March 16, 2016, a true and correct copy of Defendant’s Response
to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment was served upon Plaintiff's Counsel of
Record, L. Brent Farney, Farney Law Office, 1777 N.E. Loop 410, Suite 600, San
Antonio, Texas 78217, via electronic mail to: brent@farneylawoffice.com .
/s/Lorne C. Book
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Page 7
CAUSE NO. 2013-71458-431
NORTH TEXAS AUTO SALES, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
LLC,
Plaintiff
Vv. 442%? JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PAT LYNCH,
Defendant DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT “A”
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
STATE OF TEXAS )
)
COUNTY OF DENTON )
On this date appeared PAT LYNCH, Defendant in the above-styled cause of
action, who, having been duly sworn, stated under oath as follows:
“My name is PAT LYNCH. I am the Defendant in the above-styled case. I am
fully competent to make this affidavit. The matters stated therein are within my personal
knowledge:
1 I have conducted business with North Texas Auto Sales, LLC, and Ashley
Cope Celedonia since approximately 2005. However, North Texas Auto Sales, LLC,
never once offered to loan me any money for any reason, and I never once agreed to
borrow money from North Texas Auto Sales, LLC, for any purpose.
2 I never once agreed to accept money from North Texas Auto Sales, LLC, in
exchange for a promise to repay it any amount whatsoever.
3 I never consented to repay North Texas Auto Sales, LLC, any amount of
money for any reason
4 I never once signed any contract with North Texas Auto Sales, LLC, for the
repayment of any money for any reason
5 I have no knowledge of any alleged amount to be loaned to me by North
Texas Auto Sales, LLC, the maturity date of any such loan, the interest rate on any such
loan, or the repayment terms of any such loan
6 I hereby swear that the above and foregoing statements are true and
correct
Ml LA
PAT LYNCH
Jurat
Subscribed and sworn before me, the undersigned notary public on this 16th day
of March, 2016
Shelley Annette Johnson}
DKc Cogs Ze ihn
Notary Public, Notary Public, Sgate of Tekas
@ State of Texas
Expires: 09/15/2019
—_-
jot arrenna yaitad2,
itd 4
281 R
ere:
aa
Preview
FILED: 3/16/2016 3:28:52 PM SHERRI ADELSTEIN Denton County District Clerk By: Jennifer Stout, Deputy CAUSE NO. 2013-71458-431 NORTH TEXAS AUTO SALES, IN THE DISTRICT COURT LLC, Plaintiff Vv. 442%” JUDICIAL DISTRICT PAT LYNCH, Defendant DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE COURT: COMES NOW, PAT LYNCH, Defedant in the above-styled cause of action, and files his Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by NORTH TEXAS AUTO SALES, LLC (hereinafter “North Texas” or “Plaintiff’), and would respectfully show as follows: 1 SUMMARY OF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE In its Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”), Plainitff offers nothing more than a series of unproven legal conclusions as “evidence” to support its cause of action for an alleged breach of contract. Plaintiff offers no contract, and offers no evidence of the existence of even one of the elements of any valid and enforceable contract, and specifically fails to prove the existence of a contract for the loan of money. The plain reason for Plaintiffs failure to produce a valid and enforceable contract is that no such contract exists or has ever existed. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 1 2. OBJECTIONS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 21 The procedure known as “Summary Judgment” allows for the early determination of some or all of the claims and defenses raised by the pleadings in a case, without a full-scale trial. It provides a speedy means for the disposition of controversies that do not present fact issues in the efficient elimination of patently unmeritorious claims and untenable defenses. The summary judgment proceeding is not intended to be a trial by exhibits and affidavits; rather, it is a device to determine whether genuine issues exist for determination by the trier of fact. In order for a summary judgment to be granted, all factual issues must be eliminated. 22 In its Motion and Affidavit, Plaintiff, by and through its authorized representative, Ashley Cope Celedonia, makes no proper attempt to show the Court that no factual issues are present. Instead, Plaintff simply regurgitates its groundless allegations in a poor attempt to disguise them as indisupteable facts. 2.3 Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Motion in its entirety because said Motion does not expressly state anywhere therein the grounds on which the Motion is sought. Therefore, the Motion is legally insufficient. Any relied attempt by Plaintiff to state therein the grounds on which the Motion is filed, is unclear, vague, and ambiguous. 3 OBJECTIONS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE 3.1. Objection to Use of Pleadings. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs use of factual allegations in its Original Petition and Motion as summary judgment proof. A a party cannot rely on factual statements contained in its own petition or answer as summary-judgment proof. Hidalgo v. Surety S&L Ass'n, 462 8.W.2d 540, 545 (Tex. 1971)). An affidavit that is nothing more than a sworn repetition of the allegations in the pleadings is conclusory and has no DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 2 probative force. Brookshire Katy Drainage Dist. v. Lily Gardens, LLC, 333 S.W.3d 301, 308 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). Affiant des &, sworn statements” are nothing more than mere regurgitations of the allegations contained in both its’ Original Petition and Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the statements constitue improper summary judgment proof. 32. Objection to the “Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment” of Ashley Cope Celedonia — Factual Conclusion. Defendant objects to the “Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment” of Ashley Cope Celedonia as an exhibit to Plaintiff's Motion on grounds that it contains factual conclusions. Affidavits must be based upon facts and cannot merely recite factual conclusions. Conclusory statements that are not supported by facts are not proper summary judgment proof. See McIntyre v. Ramirez, 109 S.W.3d 741, 749-50 (Tex. 2003); Purcell v. Bellinger, 940 S.W.2d 599, 602 (Tex. 1997). Unsupported conclusory statements are not credible and are not susceptible to being readily controverted. Ryland Group v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Tex. 1996); See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c). Specifically, Plaintiff's statement that, “Plaintiff financed $200,000.00 of vehicles of and for the benefit of Defendant . . .” (Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support, p.1) is an improper and unsupported factual conclusion. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support of its Motion constitues improper summary judgment proof and Defendant’s objection should be sustained. 3.3. Objection to the “Affidavit in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment” of Ashley Cope Celedonia — Legal Conclusion. Defendant objects to the “Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment” of Ashley Cope Celedonia as an exhibit to Plaintiffs Motion on grounds that it contains legal conclusions. Affidavits must state facts and cannot merely recite legal conclusions. Brownlee v. Brownlee, 665 S.W.2d 111, DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 3 112 (Tex. 1984). Legal conclusions in affidavits have no probative force. 801 Nolana, Inc. v. RTC Mortg. Trust, 944 S.W.2d 751, 754 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi, 1997, writ denied). Specifically, the following statements constitue nothing more than legal conclusions: “Plaintiff and Defendant had a fully enforceable agreement involving the purchasing and financing of vehicles”; “Plaintiff financed $200,000.00 of vehicles of and for the benefit of Defendant for which Defendant became liable for repayment”; “After demand and all other conditions precedent have been met, Defendant has breached the agreement by failing and refusing to pay the $200,000.00 owed to Plaintiff”; and “Afier all just and lawful offsets, Defendant owes Plaintiff $200,000.00” (Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support, p.1). Each such statement constitutes an improper legal conclusion. Both the existence and enforceability of a contract between parties is a legal conclusion. Legal conclusions are not proper summary judgment proof. Harris v. Varo, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 520, 523 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1991) (quoting Simpson v. MBank Dallas, N.A., 724 S.W.2d 102, 108 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1987, writ refd n.r.e.). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Affidavit in Support of its Motion constitues improper summary judgment proof and Defendant’s objection should be sustained. 4 EXISTENCE OF GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT REGARDING EXISTENCE OF A VALID AND ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT 4.1 To be entitled to summary judgment on its breach of contract claim, Plaintiff must prove, as a matter of law, the essential elements ofa breach of contract claim: (1) the existence DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 4 of a valid contract; (2) performance or tendered performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach of the contract by the defendant; (4) damages sustained as a result of the breach. Winchek vy. American Exp. Travel Related Services Co., Inc., 232 S.W.3d 197, 202 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.]; see also Prime Products, Inc. v. S.S.1. Plastics, Inc., 97 8.W.3d 631, 636 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of any of the essential elelments of a breach of contract claim. 4.2. No Contract. Plaintiff has produced no evidence of the existence of a contract. Parties form a binding contract when the following elements are present: (1) an offer, (2) an acceptance in strict compliance with the terms of the offer, (3) meeting of the minds, (4) each party’s consent to the terms, and (5) execution and delivery of the contract with the intent that it be mutual and binding. /d. To be enforceable, a contract must be sufficiently certain to enable a court to determine the rights and responsibilities of the parties. 7.0. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218, 221 (Tex.1992). As evidentiary support for its motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff simply attached the affidavit of its owner, Ashley Cope Celedonia, who does nothing more than regurgitate the allegations of Plaintiff's Original Petition and Motion. As demonstrated in the objections above, this does not constitute competent summary judgment proof. In contrast, Defendant attaches his own affidavit in support as Exhibit “A”, and incorporates the same by reference herein as if recited verbatim in full. Defendant’s affidavit is based on his personal knowledge and dealings with Planitiff, and establishes that Plainitff and Defendant never entered into a contract of any sort. 4.3. No Conract to Loan Money. Plaintiff's allegations that “Plainitff financed $200,000.00 of vehicles of and for the benefit of Defendant, for which Defendant became liable for repayment,” is wholly without merit. In a contract to loan money, the material terms will DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 5 generally be: the amount to be loaned, maturity date of the loan, the interest rate, and the repayment terms. TO Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218, 221 (Tex. 1992) (citing Wheeler v. White, 398 S.W.2d 93, 95 (Tex. 1965)). Plaintiff has produced no such evidence. Further, as demonstrated by the affidavit of Defendant attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference herein as if recited verbatim in full, Defendant has no knowledge of any such agreement and further demonstrates that no such agreement ever existed. 5. CONCLUSION Plaintiff has alleged a breach of contract, yet has utterly failed to produced any evidence ofa contract — or even one element ofa contract — existent between the parties. The entireity of Plaintiff's summary judgment evidence is without any probative force, as it is wrought with nothing more than an improper repetition of Plaintiffs allegations contined in its Original Petition and Motion. As a result, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the parties ever entered intoa valid and enforceable contract. 6. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that this Court DENY Plantiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, assess the Defendant’s costs and attorney’s fees against Plaintiff, as well as all other relief to which they may show themselves justly entitled at law or equity. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 6 Respectfully submitted, PRATT BOOK, PLLC /S/Lorne C. Book Lorne C. Book, Attorney Texas State Bar No. 24073360 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 505 Frisco, Texas 75034 Tel. (972) 712-1515 Fax. (972) 712-2832 Email:lbook@prattbook.com Attorney for Pat Lynch CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on March 16, 2016, a true and correct copy of Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment was served upon Plaintiff's Counsel of Record, L. Brent Farney, Farney Law Office, 1777 N.E. Loop 410, Suite 600, San Antonio, Texas 78217, via electronic mail to: brent@farneylawoffice.com . /s/Lorne C. Book DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 7 CAUSE NO. 2013-71458-431 NORTH TEXAS AUTO SALES, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT LLC, Plaintiff Vv. 442%? JUDICIAL DISTRICT PAT LYNCH, Defendant DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT “A” AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT STATE OF TEXAS ) ) COUNTY OF DENTON ) On this date appeared PAT LYNCH, Defendant in the above-styled cause of action, who, having been duly sworn, stated under oath as follows: “My name is PAT LYNCH. I am the Defendant in the above-styled case. I am fully competent to make this affidavit. The matters stated therein are within my personal knowledge: 1 I have conducted business with North Texas Auto Sales, LLC, and Ashley Cope Celedonia since approximately 2005. However, North Texas Auto Sales, LLC, never once offered to loan me any money for any reason, and I never once agreed to borrow money from North Texas Auto Sales, LLC, for any purpose. 2 I never once agreed to accept money from North Texas Auto Sales, LLC, in exchange for a promise to repay it any amount whatsoever. 3 I never consented to repay North Texas Auto Sales, LLC, any amount of money for any reason 4 I never once signed any contract with North Texas Auto Sales, LLC, for the repayment of any money for any reason 5 I have no knowledge of any alleged amount to be loaned to me by North Texas Auto Sales, LLC, the maturity date of any such loan, the interest rate on any such loan, or the repayment terms of any such loan 6 I hereby swear that the above and foregoing statements are true and correct Ml LA PAT LYNCH Jurat Subscribed and sworn before me, the undersigned notary public on this 16th day of March, 2016 Shelley Annette Johnson} DKc Cogs Ze ihn Notary Public, Notary Public, Sgate of Tekas @ State of Texas Expires: 09/15/2019 —_- jot arrenna yaitad2, itd 4 281 R ere: aa