Legal Document: Terra Vinet VS. Louise Margaret McKenzie, Colin Donald McKenzie

On December 27, 2018 a Louise Margaret McKenzie and Donald Colin McKenzie's Supplemental Response to Terra Vinet's Motion t - Answer was filed involving a dispute between Vinet, Terra, and Mckenzie, Colin Donald, Mckenzie, Louise Margaret, for Inj/Damage-Other Injury or Damage >$200,000 in the District Court of Montgomery County.

Preview
Received and E-Filed for Record
8/15/2019 11:24 AM
Melisa Miller, District Clerk
Montgomery County, Texas
Deputy Clerk, Megan Shiflett

CAUSE NO. 18-12-16948

TERRA VINET § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff, §
§
vs. § MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
§
LOUISE MARGARET MCKENZIE §
AND COLIN DONALD MCKENZIE §
Defendants. § 284th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

LOUISE MARGARET MCKENZIE AND DONALD COLIN MCKENZIE’S
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO TERRA VINET’S
MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:

COME NOW, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, LOUISE MARGARET MCKENZIE and

COLIN DONALD MCKENZIE (collectively, “Defendants” or “McKenzies”), and file LOUISE

MARGARET MCKENZIE and COLIN DONALD MCKENZIE’s Supplemental Response to

TERRA VINET’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims brought under the TEXAS CITIZENS

PARTICIPATION ACT, codified in Chapter 27 of the TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICES & REMEDIES CODE. In

support thereof, the McKenzies respectfully show the following unto the Court:

I.
SCHEDULE OF EXHIBITS
1. Mr. and Mrs. McKenzie rely on the following evidence in support of this response to Ms.

Vinet’s Motion to Dismiss:

(1) Exhibit “A” Affidavit of Colin David McKenzie

(2) Exhibit “B” Affidavit of Louise Margaret McKenzie

(3) Exhibit “C” August 15, 2016 Warranty Deed

(4) Exhibit “D” September 8, 2018 Residential Lease Application

(5) Exhibit “E” September 22, 2018 Residential Lease;

(6) Exhibit “F” November 2, 2018 Demand Letter from Vinets;
Page 1 of 3
(7) Exhibit “G” November 7, 2018 Response Letter from McKenzies;

(8) Exhibit “H” November 9, 2018 Demand Letter from Vinets;

(9) Exhibit “I” November 26, 2018 Response Letter from McKenzies;

(10) Exhibit “J” May 17, 2019 Notice to Terra Vinet to Vacate Property;

(11) Exhibit “K” May 17, 2019 Notice to Brennon Vinet to Vacate Property;

(12) Exhibit “L” June 28, 2019 Correspondence between Parties’ Counsel

(13) The McKenzies ask the Court to take judicial notice of Defendants’ First Amended
Counterclaims and First Amended Third-Party Petition against Brennon Vinet,
already on file with the Court herein; and

(14) The McKenzies ask the Court to take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Original Petition
(First Amended), already on file with the Court herein, which the McKenzies do
not admit, adopt, or incorporate herein by reference.

(15) The McKenzies ask the Court to take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s Motion to
Dismiss Counterclaims, already on file with the Court herein, which the McKenzies
do not admit, adopt, or incorporate herein by reference.

All exhibits attached hereto are incorporated herein by reference.

XII.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, LOUISE

MARGARET MCKENZIE and COLIN DONALD MCKENZIE, respectfully request the Court

deny Terra Vinet’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims, enter an Order denying Terra Vinet’s Motion

to Dismiss Counterclaims, and award Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, LOUISE MARGARET

MCKENZIE and COLIN DONALD MCKENZIE, court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees

associated with responding to Terra Vinet’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims.

Page 2 of 3
Respectfully submitted,

THE WEAVER LAW FIRM

/s/ Richard D. Weaver
Richard D. Weaver
Texas Bar No. 24047083
rweaver@weaverlawyers.com
James Hamilton Foley
Texas Bar No. 24059764
jfoley@weaverlawyers.com
1800 Bering Drive, Suite 1050
Houston, Texas 77057
(713) 572-4900 (Telephone)
(713) 513-5566 (Facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR LOUISE
MARGARET MCKENZIE and
COLIN DONALD MCKENZIE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was forwarded to all interested
parties by service on their attorneys of record via email on August 15, 2019, as follows:

Brad Beers Via E-mail: BBeers@BeersLaw.net
BEERS LAW FIRM
5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 700
Houston, Texas 77006
/s/ Richard D. Weaver __

Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT B

CAUSE NO. 18-12-16948

TERRA VINET § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff, §
§
vs. § MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS
§
LOUISE MARGARET MCKENZIE §
AND COLIN DONALD MCKENZIE §
Defendants. § 284th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

AFFIDAVIT OF LOUISE MARGARET MCKENZIE

Virginia
STATE OF ___________________ §
§
James City
COUNTY OF _________________ §

Before me, the undersigned Notary Public, on this ____ 15 August
day of _______________ 2019,
personally appeared Louise Margaret McKenzie, a person whose identity is known to me, or
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence. Louise Margaret McKenzie, duly sworn upon
her oath, stated the following:

“My name is Louise Margaret McKenzie. I am of sound mind, over the age of 18
years, and I am competent to make this affidavit. I have never been convicted of a
felony. I am authorized to make this affidavit on my behalf. I have personal
knowledge that the facts stated in this affidavit are true and correct.

My husband, Colin Donald McKenzie, and I live in Jakarta, Indonesia. We own
real property located at 47 N Regent Oak, Spring, Texas 77381-6442 (the
“Property”). See Exhibit “C”, General Warranty Deed. Because we are not
available in Houston most of the year, we hired Anita Guerra, of Monark Realty, to
manage our property.
On September 22, 2018, my husband and I entered into a Residential Lease
Agreement (the “Lease”) to rent the Property to Plaintiff Terra Vinet. The Lease
term commenced on October 1, 2018 and expires on September 30, 2019 and the
monthly rent is $7,500.
Ms. Vinet indicated to my husband and I that she and her husband, Brennon Vinet,
lived apart and that he would not be occupying the Property. Ms. Vinet represented
that only she and her daughters needed somewhere to live. We were sympathetic to
her situation and believed that Ms. Vinet was willing and able to assume all the
contractual obligations under the Lease, including the rent and utility payments.
On or about October 1, 2018, Ms. Vinet and her two daughters, Tinsley and
Kherington, moved into the Property. It quickly became apparent that Mr. Vinet
was occupying the Property, since he was very involved with the family, had moved

Page 1 of 5

DocID:5d556bcb00178668608e98b4
significant possessions into the Property, and was seen making decisions and
representations regarding the Property. Ms. Vinet had previously stated, under
Section 12(A) of the Lease, that the only occupants of the property would be Terra
Vinet, Tinsley Vinet, and Kherington Vinet. See Exhibit “E”, Residential Lease.

Section 30 of the Lease states that “Tenant’s statements in this lease and any
application for rental are material representations. Each party to this lease
represents that he or she is of legal age to enter into a contract. If Tenant makes a
misrepresentation in this lease or in an application for rental, Tenant is in default.”

Though she did not list Brennon Vinet as an authorized occupant of the Property,
Ms. Vinet allowed him to occupy the Property anyway.

If Ms. Vinet had disclosed that her husband would be occupying the Property or if
she had listed him as a party to the Lease, we would have performed our due
diligence in researching his suitability as an occupant or tenant, including
performing a background check on Mr. Vinet. Instead, we were not given the
opportunity until after entering the Lease with Ms. Vinet.

After learning that Mr. Vinet was occupying the Property, I performed a
background search on Mr. Vinet and discovered his involvement in several lawsuits
relating to a strip club that he owns, or previously owned or associated with, in
Pensacola, Florida, BABE’S SOUTH, INC. We also discovered that Mr. Vinet had
been arrested for failing to complete the Florida Department of Energy Protection’s
requirements for closing the hazardous “Saufley Landfill” that he co-owned, and
that he had been fined more than $125,000 as a result of four motions for contempt
filed by the Florida Department of Energy Protection in connection with Mr.
Vinet’s failure to close that landfill.

If Ms. Vinet had included Mr. Vinet as an occupant on either her lease application
or the Lease, we would have conducted this background check on Mr. Vinet before
entering the Lease and discovered his involvement in the lawsuits related to his
strip club business and landfill. Had we known about her husband’s history and
lawsuits, we would have declined Ms. Vinet’s lease application.

I believe that it was Ms. Vinet’s deliberate decision not to include Mr. Vinet on her
lease application in order to avoid a background search on her husband Mr. Vinet
and in order to have him avoid financial responsibility if the Vinets defaulted on
the Lease. Ms. Vinet misrepresented that Brennon Vinet would not occupy the
Property so that we would not perform a background check on Mr. Vinet and so
that Mr. Vinet would not be directly financially liable to us under the Lease.

Under Section 11 of the Lease, Ms. Vinet was required to assume control of all
utilities, including the gas utility or the alarm monitoring system. Id. Ms. Vinet did
not timely assume control of the gas utility or the alarm monitoring system, a breach
and default of the Lease. In fact, we paid for the gas utility until February 2019.

Page 2 of 5

DocID:5d556bcb00178668608e98b4
Section 26(A) of the Lease states that Ms. Vinet was “required to maintain
monitored alarm service with Landlord’s current alarm company, Bulldog
Security…to be in effect at all times during lease term and any renewals.” Id. Ms.
Vinet failed to assume control of the Bulldog Security service for the Property, a
breach and default of the Lease. We are still paying for the Bulldog Security
service.

On or about October 8, 2018, Ms. Vinet reported to our property manager, Ms.
Guerra, that Ms. Vinet suspected there was mold in the Property.

On October 23, 2018, I met with Ms. Vinet and Mr. Vinet to discuss the mold issue
and Ms. Vinet stated that she and Mr. Vinet and their daughters had moved out of
the Property and into a hotel the night before, on October 22, 2018.

On October 25, 2018, I met with Ms. Vinet, Mr. Vinet, and Ms. Guerra and I made
an offer in compromise: to waive rent for October and November 2018, for a total
of $15,000 of rent waived; and I also offered to pay for the October and November
2018 utilities.

On November 2, 2018, Terra and Brennon Vinet rejected my offer by demanding
$11,463 for reimbursement of the Vinets’ out-of-pocket expenses and an additional
$990 per day until the Vinets could move back into the Property. See Exhibit “F”,
November 2, 2018 Demand Letter from Vinets.

On November 7, 2018, we responded to the Vinets’ demand, offering to waive
October, November, and December 2018 rent, reimburse the Vinets for utilities
during October and November 2018, and remediate those personal items belonging
to Mr. and Ms. Vinet and their daughters that were located on the Property. See
Exhibit “G”, November 7, 2018 Response Letter from McKenzies.

On November 9, 2018, the Vinets rejected our offer. They sent a letter to us that
called our offer “nothing more than petty and unsupported defenses,” and “suggest
that we defer a discussion of your defenses, as well as whatever claims for damages
the Vinets may have to a later date and instead see if we can reach an agreement on
an interim solution.” The Vinets then demanded reimbursement for their expenses,
now totaling $15,000, and an agreement from my husband and I that we “be
responsible for any future medical expenses, and…pay for future hotel and living
expenses for the remainder of the time that they are out of the leased premises.” See
Exhibit “H”, November 9, 2018 Demand Letter from Vinets.

On November 26, 2018, we sent the Vinets another response, formally revoking the
offer we made on November 7, 2018, which the Vinets had already rejected on
November 9, 2018. We also demanded that Ms. Vinet pay the October and
November 2018 rent and issued a notice to vacate the Property. See Exhibit “I”,
November 26, 2018 Response Letter from McKenzies.

Page 3 of 5

DocID:5d556bcb00178668608e98b4
Ms. Vinet has still not paid rent for October 2018, November 2018, or December
2018, and a breach of the Lease and default under the Lease. Ms. Vinet also failed
to pay the gas utility fees for October 2018 and November 2018. My husband and
I paid these bills and demanded reimbursement from Ms. Vinet but have not be
reimbursed to date.

On May 17, 2019, my husband and I issued a 3-Day Notice to Vacate the Property
to Terra Vinet and a 10-Day Notice to Vacate the Property to Brennon Vinet. See
Exhibit “J”, May 17, 2019 Three-Day Notice to Vacate to Terra Vinet, and Exhibit
“K”, May 17, 2019 Ten-Day Notice to Vacate to Brennon Vinet.

Neither Ms. Vinet nor Mr. Vinet have vacated our Property.

This lawsuit is necessary to recover the rent and utility payments owed to myself
and my husband, Colin McKenzie, from Terra Vinet for the months of October,
November, and December 2018, as well as to affirm that any verbal or revoked
offers made by us to the Vinets do not constitute binding agreements, and to
maintain our superior right to possession of the Property.

The following Exhibits, which are attached to this affidavit, are true and correct
copies of my personal business records normally kept in my regular course of
personal business:
(1) Exhibit “C” August 15, 2016 Warranty Deed

(2) Exhibit “D” September 8, 2018 Residential Lease Application

(3) Exhibit “E” September 22, 2018 Residential Lease;

(4) Exhibit “F” November 2, 2018 Demand Letter from Vinets;

(5) Exhibit “G” November 7, 2018 Response Letter from McKenzies;

(6) Exhibit “H” November 9, 2018 Demand Letter from Vinets;

(7) Exhibit “I” November 26, 2018 Response Letter from McKenzies;

(8) Exhibit “J” May 17, 2019 Notice to Terra Vinet to Vacate Property;

(9) Exhibit “K” May 17, 2019 Notice to Brennon Vinet to Vacate Property; and

(10) Exhibit “M” Background research results on Brennon Vinet.

It was in the regular course of my personal business for me to make these records
to be included in these records. These records were made at or near the time or
reasonably soon after the act, event, condition, or opinion that was recorded. The

Page 4 of 5

DocID:5d556bcb00178668608e98b4
records attached hereto are either originals or exact duplicates of originals. I have
reviewed the records and the transactions surrounding them.

Further, Affiant sayeth not.”
Louise Margaret Mckenzie
____________________________________
Louise Margaret McKenzie

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this _____ 15 August
day of ________________
2019 by Louise Margaret McKenzie.

____________________________________
Notary Public in and for James City County, VA

Page 5 of 5

DocID:5d556bcb00178668608e98b4
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT I

THE WEAVER LAW FIRM
1800 BERING DR.
SUITE 1050
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77057
(713) 572-4900
FAX (713) 513-5566
www.WeaverLawyers.com

November 26, 2018

VIA EMAIL: BBeers@Beerslaw.net
Brad Beers
5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 700
Houston, Texas 77006

Re: Our clients: Colin McKenzie and Louise McKenzie
Your clients: Terra Vinet and Ben Vinet
Subject Property: 47 N. Regent Oak, Spring, Texas 77381

Rule 408 Settlement Discussions

Dear Mr. Beers:

Please accept this letter as formal notice that Colin McKenzie and Louise McKenzie
(the “client”) engaged THE WEAVER LAW FIRM to represent their interests with regard to the
Subject Property. Please direct all further communication to this office.

You previously received a letter dated November 7, 2018 from my clients’ former
counsel, Kemberly Warren. Ms. Warren’s letter nicely outlines the McKenzies position in this
matter. It also addresses the weakness of your clients’ claims.

Generally, your clients have demanded compensation for hotel accommodations
associated with your clients’ decision to vacate the premises. Your clients also seek
compensation for meals, bedding, clothing and medical expenses.

Please note that the Landlord did not require your clients to vacate the premises. Your
clients moved out and did not provide any notification to the Landlord of their intent to move
out.

Your clients’ demands are unreasonable, unsubstantiated and unsupported by law and
contract.

As Ms. Warren keenly pointed out: Paragraph 21 of the lease states that Landlord is not
responsible to Tenant for any damages, injuries, or losses caused by mold.
Statutory Fraud in a Real Estate Transaction & Breach of Contract

As you are aware, Texas courts impose harsh penalties, including the award of actual and
exemplary damages, on defendants who make fraudulent representations in a real estate
transaction. SECTION 27.01 of the TEXAS BUSINESS AND COMMERCE CODE states:

(a) Fraud in a transaction involving real estate or stock in a corporation or joint stock
company consists of a

(1) false representation of a past or existing material fact, when the false
representation is (A) made to a person for the purpose of inducing
that person to enter into a contract and (B) relied on by that person in
entering into the contract; or

(2) false promise to do an act, when the false promise is (A) material, (B)
made with the intention of not fulfilling it,(C) made to a person for the
purpose of inducing that person to enter into a contract, and (D) relied on
by that person in entering into that contract.

(b) A person who makes a false representation or false promise commits the fraud
described in Subsection (a) of this section and is liable to the person defrauded for
actual damages.

(c) A person who makes a false representation or false promise with actual
awareness of the falsity thereof commits the fraud described in Subsection (a) of
this section and is liable to the person defrauded for exemplary damages.
(emphasis added)

Your client’s false statements are as follows:

In the Residential Lease Application, Ms. Vinet indicated that only her and her two
daughters would occupy the premises. Instead, she allowed her husband to reside at the property.
Ms. Vinet gave the impression that she was not living with her husband and was raising her two
daughters on her own.

Previous Settlement Offer Revoked

My client previously made an offer of settlement through their former counsel, Kemberly
Warren.

My clients offered the following:
1. Waiver of October rent (which has been previously refunded to Tenant) in the amount
of $7,500.00;
2. Waiver of November rent in the amount of $7,500.00;
3. Reimbursement for utilities during the remediation process for October and
November;
4. Waiver of December rent in the amount of $7,500.00; and
5. Remediation of personal items of Tenant and named occupants in the lease.

Your clients’ former counsel Joshua Koch, offensively rejected my clients’ offer when he
wrongly stated that Kemberly Warren’s letter offered nothing more than “petty and unsupported
defenses.” Ms. Warren’s letter was correct in her analyzation of the contract and law.

So that there is no misunderstanding as to whether there are any offers on the table, we
hereby revoke all offers made to your clients.

Ms. Vinet is bound under the lease agreement to pay the monthly rental amount. She is
delinquent in paying her rent and in default of the lease agreement.

The mold analyzed is common mold, not toxic mold. It does not affect the health and
safety of an ordinary tenant. The landlord did not ask the tenant to vacate the Subject Property.
Instead, your clients vacated the property on their own free will and accord. While your clients
were absent from the property, my client engaged in subsequent remedial measures to clean the
home. I understand that as of today, the common non-toxic mold condition has been resolved.

Keep in mind that the fact that a landlord voluntarily or gratuitously makes repairs
constitutes neither an admission or evidence of a duty to make such repairs, nor does it operate to
create a new or collateral agreement to do so. See Yarbrough v. Booher, 174 S.W.2d 47, 48-49
(Tex. 1943).

If your clients are concerned that their cloths contain allergens, please instruct your
clients to pick up their clothes or arrange a remediation company to clean your clients’ clothes at
their own expense. The owner will be happy to ask the project manager to forward the quote
received for the clothing remediation, as well as the charges associated with the remediation of
the emergency clothing.

An Injury Claim Would be Unsuccessful

When an alleged injury is the result of the property’s condition rather than an activity,
premises-liability principles apply. Occidental Chem. Corp v. Jenkins, 478 S.W.3d 649, 644
(Tex. 2016).

As you are aware, for a premises liability case, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the defendant
had actual or constructive knowledge of some condition on the premises (2) the condition posed
an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) the defendant did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or
eliminate the risk; and (4) the owner’s failure proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. State
Dept. of Hwys. & Pub. Transp. V. Payne, 838 S.W. S.W.2d 235, 237 (Tex.1992); University of
Tex. -Pan Am. V. Aguilar, 251 S.W.3d 511, 513 (Tex.2008).

Your clients know that the McKenzies did not have knowledge of the alleged condition
of the premises. The so-called “condition” was common non-toxic mold that did not pose an
unreasonable risk of harm to an ordinary tenant. And the so-called “risk” was not the result of
my clients’ unreasonable care of the premises.

The lease required Tenant to complete an Inventory and Condition form listing any issues
or concerns that the Tenant had with the Property. The Tenant failed to complete the Inventory
and Condition form, indicating that Tenants were accepting the property in the current condition
and with an indication that the “mold condition” did not exist prior to tenants taking possession.

As previously stated, Paragraph 21 of the lease states that Landlord is not responsible to
Tenant for any damages, injuries, or losses caused by mold.

The McKenzies are also not liable to Mr. Vinet who was not on the lease and never
disclosed to my clients. The tenant, not the landlord, is generally liable for injuries to third
parties on the property. Wal-Mart Stores v. Alexander, 868 S.W.2d 322, 324 (Tex.1993).

The warranty of habitability that you mentioned over the phone does not create an injury
cause of action. The warranty of habitability is the law which requires a landlord to make a
reasonably diligent effort to repair or remedy any condition which materially affects the physical
health or safety of an ordinary tenant. This warranty is governed by Sections 92.052 and 92.055
of the Texas Property Code.

Demand and Notice to Vacate

Pursuant to the lease agreement, your client is required to pay monthly rent in the amount
of $7,500 no later than the 1st day of each month. As of the date of this letter, the landlord has
not received rent payment for November. October was temporarily abated, but is now due.
Therefore, your clients are in default of the lease agreement.

Section 27 of the Lease Agreement states, “If Tenant fails to timely pay all amounts due
under this lease or otherwise fails to comply with this lease, Tenant will be in default and: (1)
Landlord may terminate Tenant’s right to occupy the Property by providing Tenant with at least
one day written notice to vacate.”

In addition, Section 30 of the Lease Agreement states, “REPRESENTATIONS: Tenant’s
statements in this lease and any application for rental are material representations. Each party to
this lease represents that he or she is of legal age to enter into a contract. If Tenant makes a
misrepresentation in this lease or in an application for rental, Tenant is in default.”

Since your client has (1) failed to pay rent timely, and (2) provided misleading
information in the lease application, your client is in default and the landlord hereby terminates
your client’s right to occupy the Property.

The deadline for your client to vacate the Property is December 10, 2018. If your client
does not vacate the Property by December 10, 2018 and if the landlord files an eviction lawsuit,
the landlord may recover attorney’s fees that will be in excess of $6,000. Pursuant to Section 29
of the Lease Agreement, my client would be entitled to recover prejudgment interest, attorney
fees, costs of service, and all other costs of the legal proceeding as the result of my client being
the prevailing party. Also, if in the event that your client decides to pursue litigation involving
the lease tenancy, Ms. Vinet should know that according to the contract, she will be responsible
for my clients’ attorney fees when they prevail in litigation (if litigation should occur).

Your client’s failure to vacate the Property by December 10, 2018 will result in an
eviction lawsuit filed against them in the Justice of the Peace Court to recover possession of
the Property. My Client will also assert causes of action for common-law fraud, statutory fraud,
breach of contract (in district or county court) and seek to recover actual damages and punitive
damages. My clients also demand reimbursement for attorney fees in the amount of $6,000 to be
paid no later than December 10, 2018.

Nothing contained in this letter shall constitute and election or waiver of any rights or
remedies available to the Landlord. It is the Landlord’s intention to preserve all rights and
remedies available to them pursuant to Texas law. Any delay or postponement in taking any
action shall not constitute a waiver of the Landlord’s right to take such action at any time.
Nothing contained herein shall constitute a waiver of any other default which may currently or
hereafter exist.

Your prompt attention to this matter is requested. Should you have any questions
concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
THE WEAVER LAW FIRM

/s/ R. D. Weaver

Richard D. Weaver
RWeaver@WeaverLawyers.com
7/25/2019 RE Vinet - McKinzie - alarm system issue.htm EXHIBIT L
From: Philip Broderick
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 9:11 PM
To: Brad Beers
Cc: Sherry Shewell; Nidia Chacon
Subject: RE: Vinet - McKinzie - alarm system issue

Mr. Beers,

Do they plan to vacate at the end of the lease term?

Philip

On Jun 28, 2019 2:18 PM, Brad Beers wrote:
Because she (and her daughters) are not in default on the lease and continue to pay their rent in a timely manner.

From: Philip Broderick [mailto:pbroderick@weaverlawyers.com]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 2:09 PM
To: Brad Beers
Cc: Sherry Shewell; Nidia Chacon
Subject: RE: Vinet - McKinzie - alarm system issue

Mr. Beers,

On review, my clients served no ces to vacate on the Vinets. Why are your clients s ll residing at the property?

Sincerely,

Philip Broderick
A orney At Law

The Weaver Law Firm
1800 Bering Drive, Suite 1050
Houston, Texas 77057
Phone: 713-572-4900
Fax: 713-513-5566

www.WeaverLawyers.com

**************************************************
NOTICE BY THE WEAVER LAW FIRM
This message, as well as any attached document, contains information from The Weaver Law
Firm that is confidential and/or privileged, or may contain attorney work product. The
information is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is
strictly prohibited, and may be unlawful. If you have received this message in error,
please delete all electronic copies of this message and its attachments, if any, destroy
any hard copies you may have created, without disclosing the contents, and notify the
sender immediately. Unintended transmission does not constitute waiver of the attorney-
client privilege or any other privilege. Unless expressly stated otherwise, nothing
contained in this message should be construed as a digital or electronic signature, nor is
it intended to reflect an intention to make an agreement by electronic means.

From: Brad Beers
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 1:50 PM
file:///Z:/AA LAWYER OFFICE/Clients/McKenzie, Colin and Louise/Litigation/Motions/D's Response to Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss/Exhibits/RE Vine…
1/3
7/25/2019 RE Vinet - McKinzie - alarm system issue.htm

To: Philip Broderick
Cc: Sherry Shewell ; Nidia Chacon
Subject: RE: Vinet - McKinzie - alarm system issue

Thank you.
Have a great weekend.
Brad

From: Philip Broderick [mailto:pbroderick@weaverlawyers.com]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 1:44 PM
To: Brad Beers
Cc: Sherry Shewell; Nidia Chacon
Subject: RE: Vinet - McKinzie - alarm system issue

Mr. Beers,

I will pass the request to my clients.

Sincerely,

Philip Broderick
A orney At Law

The Weaver Law Firm
1800 Bering Drive, Suite 1050
Houston, Texas 77057
Phone: 713-572-4900
Fax: 713-513-5566

www.WeaverLawyers.com

From: Brad Beers
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 1:42 PM
To: Philip Broderick
Cc: Sherry Shewell ; Nidia Chacon
Subject: Vinet

Case Info

Judge

Bays, Kristin Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 15, 2019

Case Filing Date

December 27, 2018

County

Parties

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

Document for Terra Vinet VS. Louise Margaret McKenzie, Colin Donald McKenzie

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties