Preview
Filed
6/12/2018 11:03 AM
Annie Rebecca Elliott
District Clerk
Fort Bend County, Texas
Layla Helton
CAUSE NO: 17-DCV-246998
BRIGHTWATER HOMEOWNERS) _ IN THE DISTRICT COURT
ASSOCIATION )
) 240th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
vs. )
)
)
OMOTAYO J. LAWAL
FORT BEND, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Omotayo J. Lawal, Defendant in the above styled and numbered cause,
through their attorney of record and file this response to Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment, asking the Court to deny the said motion as it was based on falsehood, and because
there are genuine issues of material fact in this case that must be decided by the jury. In support
of this response, Defendant would respectfully show as follows:
1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A brief synopsis of the state of the case is as follows:
i Plaintiff filed the Petition in this case on December 5, 2017.
ii The Defendant was served with the Petition and filed and Answer on February 1,
2018.
iii Defendant hired the undersigned attorney on March 26, 2018 and counsel filed an
entry of appearance on that same date.
iv. Plaintiff served the Defendant with interrogatories and request for admission on
February 28, 2018. Defendant provided the responses to the said discovery responses on
March 26, 2018, which is two days before any responses was due. The said responses
was sent to the Plaintiff via Plaintiffs facsimile on record, which is (281) 493-1539.
se en RMSE RR AA A aM MESES SY SS SS SES SMES FESS
Brightwater v. 0.J. Lawal/Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's MSJ Page 1iv. As reflected in the responses, especially the requests for admission, Defendant
denied owing the Plaintiff any amount at all. Defendant also denied that the Plaintiff
satisfied any condition precedent to the collection of any alleged debt. Furthermore,
Defendant also denied that the Plaintiff was entitled to any attorneys’ fees or interests
related to the alleged debt it is trying to collect by virtue of this lawsuit. A true and
correct copy of the discovery requests is hereby attached as “Exhibit 1” while the fax
confirmation page is attached as “Exhibit 2.”
v. On or about April 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, on the
false assertion that the Plaintiff never received Defendant’s responses to Plaintiffs
requests for admission. In essence, Plaintiffs motion is based on deemed admission. This
is despite the fact that the Plaintiff has received the responses at least two days before
they became due.
2. Defendant asks the Honorable Court to deny Plaintiffs motion since the motion is
baseless, fraudulent, and should never have been filed at all, since there was no deemed
admission in this case. Since the Plaintiff deliberately filed the said motion to deceive the Court
despite knowing the true state of things on this matter, Defendant asks the Court top impose the
costs of filing a response in this case, as well as the cost of having to appear at the hearing set by
the Plaintiff in this case.
35 As a deterrent to prevent the Plaintiff from filing such baseless motion in the future,
Defendant asks the Court to impose the sum of $1,500.00 on the Plaintiff, followed by a stern
warning that the Plaintiff must cease and desist from filing any such baseless motion in the
future. Defendant believes that only steps of this nature could prohibit this Plaintiff from
repeating its actions in the future. The Court should then deny Plaintiffs motion.
Brightwater v. 0.J. Lawal/Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's MS] Page 24. Althougli no other response is necessary other than that there is no deemed admission as
stated above, should the Court decide to not summarily deny Plaintiffs motion, the Court should
deny the motion on the basis that there are genuine issues of fact that warrant a trial in this case.
To prevail in its Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff is required to prove that there was
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
TEX.R.CIV.P.166a(c). The Court must accept as true evidence favoring the non-movant. Nixon
v. Mr. Property Management, 690 S.W.2d. 546, 548-549 (Tex. 1985), The Court must make
every reasonable inference in favor of the non-movant. M.D. Anderson Hospital v. Willrich, 28
S.W.3d 22, 23 (Tex. 2000); Nixon, 690, S.W.2d at 549. The trial Court must also resolve all
doubts about the existence of a genuine issue of material fact against the movant. Nixon, 690
S.W.2d at 548-549.
5 In this case, Defendant denied owing this Plaintiff any past due assessments. The
Defendant has raised many defenses to Plaintiff's claim, including Plaintiff's failure to satisfy
conditions precedent to the imposition of the assessment or the collection of same. Such
conditions include the need to call a meeting of all homeowners in which the imposition of the
assessments must be on the agenda and discussed, with the approval of majority of all
homeowners voting based on all homes within the subdivision.
6. Not only the above, Plaintiff has an obligation to inform the Defendant of the imposition
of the assessment after the approval of all homeowners, the specific amount approved, and when
such is due. Without satisfying these conditions, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any assessments as
it has not satisfied the conditions precedent to the collection of the assessment. Not only in
Defendant’s First Amended Answer has the Defendant raised this issue of condition precedent,
Defendant has sent to the Plaintiff discovery requests that addressed these issues, which the
en ——————————
Brightwater v. 0.J. Lawal/Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's MS] Page 3Plaintiff is yet to respond to. Thus;*there is a genuine issue of fact on whether the Plaintiff is
owing any assessment, how much is due, and whether conditions precedent to the collection of
any assessment has been satisfied. This warrants that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment at this stage of the litigation.
4. There is also a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Plaintiff is entitled to
any interests, attorneys’ fees or other fees related to the collection of the assessment the Plaintiff
is trying to collect. Defendant has asserted that the Plaintiff is not owed any attorneys’ fees in
both its First Amended Answer and its responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. As part of this
defense, Defendant has asserted that Plaintiff's alleged attorneys’ fees are not due, the alleged
attorneys’ fees are exorbitant and unreasonable. This is a case in which the Plaintiff claimed that
the Defendant owed $735.00 in unfounded “assessment”. However, in its analysis, Plaintiff is
seeking to collect over Five Thousand Dollars in pre-litigation collection fees under various
disguises from the Defendant.
8 Instead of addressing these issues in its pending responses to Defendant’s discovery
requests, Plaintiff has engaged in the filing of a baseless motion for summary judgment and
stipulating that it had made efforts to collect these spurious fees from the Defendant or his
attorney, without telling the Court that the additional $7,000.00 fees the Plaintiff is trying to
collect for an alleged debt of $735.00 is so spurious and unreasonable to the point of almost
being satanic. There is therefore a genuine issue of material fact regarding Plaintiff's alleged
attorneys’ fees and other cooked up fees, which must be address at the trial of this case and
cannot be addressed at a summary judgment. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment must
therefore be denied.
ee ————————
Brightwater v. O.J. Lawal/Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's MS} Page 49. The above and many other issues, when considered in favor of the Plaintiff as the court
should, require that the Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment must be denied. Defendant
therefore respectfully asks the Court to deny the said motion and allow this matter to proceed to
trial on the merits.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that Court deny Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment as baseless and based on total falsehood since there is no deemed
admission. Defendant also asks the Court to impose the sum of $1,500.00 for filing the baseless
motion, and for all further relief, special or general, legal or equitable, as may be shown that
Defendant is justly entitled to receive.
Respectfully submitted,
OYEDEMI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
/s/wakiloyedemi
Wakil O. Oyedemi
TBN: 24084291
101 Southwestern Boulevard, Suite 200
Sugar Land, Texas 77478
Phone: 832-939-8578
Fax: 8320939-8582
ooyedemi@oyedemilaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANT
OMOTAYO J, LAWAL
eae
Brightwater v. O.J. Lawal/Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's MS] Page 5CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 11, 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was forwarded to the attorney
for the Plaintiff, Mr. Richard Bartley, 14811 St. Mary’s Lane, Suite 270, Houston, Texas 77079
by facsimile to (281) 493-1539, or by electronic transmission.
‘s/wakiloyedemi
Wakil O. Oyedemi
Attorney for the Defendant
Brightwater v. 0.J. Lawal/Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's MS} Page 6STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this 8th day of June, 2018, appeared Omotayo. J.
Lawal, who is known to me personally, and who upon his oath stated and deposed that the
following statements are true and correct:
1 “My name is Omotayo J. Lawal. Iam more than 18 years old. I have personal knowledge
of the facts stated herein and the facts are true and correct, accordingly I am competent to make
this affidavit
2 I am the owner of the property known as 4702 Brookside Court, Missouri City, Texas
77479. I have on many occasions challenged the Brightwater Homeowners association regarding
the yearly assessment the association imposes on all homeowners including mine, without the
approval of the owners of the property as required, and without adequate notice or absence of
any notice of any meeting in which the issues of the yearly assessment would be discussed prior
to the imposition of the said assessment.
3. Brightwater homeowner’s association did not send me any notice of any meeting before
the fees for the years 2016, 2017 or any other year was imposed, as I would have been at such
meetings. Even after the said assessments were imposed, I was still not notified. Prior to the
filing of this lawsuit, I did not receive any notice of collection of any debt from the Brightwater
Homeowners Association to pay such assessment. I knew any amount was pending when the
lawsuit was filed
4. Furthermore, I know as a fact that the fees and attorneys fees and other sums added to the
yearly assessment are exorbitant, excessive, unjustifiable and unreasonable. I therefore
challenged the said fees as such should not be imposed, especially when the homeowners
association failed to perform its duties of letting me as an owner know when any assessment
would be levied as parts of y right as a homeowner.”
5 “Affiant sayeth not”
as
Omotayo J. Lawal
7?
SWORN and SUBSCRIBED before me this Sih day of Sune 2018.
nt Pe PATRICIA ORTIZ SORNSON
Notary Public, State of Texas| 4 ‘
Comm. Expires 02-22-2020 ;
Notary ID 130548360 me eee eee
= Notary Public, State of Texas
Brightwater v. 0.J. Lawal/Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's MS} Page 8VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS
BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared Wakil O.
Oyedemi, who, being by me duly sworn on oath, deposed and stated that he is the attorney for
the Defendant in the above-mentioned cause, and that the information contained in the foregoing
Defendant’s Response to Motion for summary judgment , especially regarding the fact that
responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests were provided to the Plaintiff on March 26, 2018, is
within his personal knowledge, and is true and correct.
__ walleye:
Wakil O. Oyedemi
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this }\fA_ day of Jum _, 2018, to
certify which witness my hand and official seal.
CYNTHIA DIAZ
My Notary ID # 128810697
Expires December 16, 2019CAUSE NO: 17-DCV-246998
BRIGHTWATER HOMEOWNERS __) IN THE DISTRICT COURT
ASSOCIATION )
) 240th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
vs. )
)
)
* OMOTAYO J. LAWAL FORT BEND, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
TO: Defendant Brightwater Homeowners Association, and/or their attorney of record, Richard
E. Bartley, 14811 St. Mary’s Lane, Suite 270, Houston, Texas 77079.
COMES NOW, Defendant Omotayo J. Lawal, and provides the following objections,
answers and responses to Plaintiff's Request for admissions, request for production,
interrogatories and Request for Disclosures while reserving the right to amend or supplement
the said answers and responses.
Respectfully submitted,
OYEDEMI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
/s/wakiloyedemi
Wakil O. Oyedemi, Esq
TBN: 24084291
101 Southwestern Boulevard, Suite 200
Sugar Land, Texas 77478
Tel: (832) 939-8578
Fax: (832) 939-8582
Email: ooyederr nilaw.com
ATTORNEYS DEFENDANT
OMOTAYO J. LAWAL
il
Brightwater HOA v. Omotayo J. Lawal/Responses to Discovery Requests Page 1CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 26, 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of
Appearance was forwarded to the attorney for the Plaintiff, Mr. Richard Bartley, 14811 St.
Mary’s Lane, Suite 270, Houston, Texas 77079 by facsimile to (281) 4921539, or by electronic
transmission. 443-
s/wakiloyedemi
Wakil O. Oyedemi
Attorney for the Defendant
Brightwater HOA v. Omotayo J. Lawal/Responses to Discovery Requests Page 2DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
1. Any and all documents identified by Defendant in Defendant's response to Plaintiffs
Interrogatory No. 2
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad, burdensome, and
asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. Subject to this objection, Defendant will
comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits.
Any and all documents disclosed by Defendant in Defendant's response to Plaintiffs Request for
Disclosure No. 6(d).
RESPONSE: None at present.
Any and all documents disclosed by Defendant in Defendant's response to Plaintiffs Request for
Disclosure No. 7.
RESPONSE: None.
Any and all documents disclosed by Defendant in Defendant's response to Plaintiffs Request for
Disclosure No. 8.
RESPONSE: None.
Any and all documents disclosed by Defendant in Defendant's response to Plaintiffs Request for
Disclosure No. 9.
RESPONSE: Defendant object on the basis of attorney-client privilege, attorney work
product, and on the basis that the request is a fishing expedition. Subject to these
objections, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding exchange of trial
exhibits.
If you denied Request for Admission No. 1, produce any and all documents which support such
denial.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad, burdensome, and
asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. Subject to this objection, Defendant will
comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits.
Page lof 77.
If you denied Request for AdmissionNo. 2, produce any and all documents which support such
denial.
RESPONSE: RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad,
burdensome, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. Subject to this objection,
Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits.
8. If you denied Request for Admission No. 3, produce any and all documents which support such
denial.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad, burdensome, and
asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply
with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits.
9. If you denied Request for Admission No. 4, produce any and all documents which support
such denial.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad, burdensome, and
asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. Subject to this objection, Defendant will
comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits
10. If you denied Request for Admission No. 5, produce any and all documents which support
such denial.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and
burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket
regarding the exchange of trial exhibits.
11 If you denied Request for Admission No. 6, produce any and all documents which support
such denial
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and
burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket
regarding the exchange of trial exhibits.
12. Ifyou denied Request for Admission No. 7, produce any and all documents which support
such denial.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome.
Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange
of trial exhibits.
Page 2 of 713. If you denied Request for Admission No. 8, produceany and all documents which support
such denial.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome.
Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of
trial exhibits.
14. If you denied Request for Admission No. 9, produce any and all documents which support
such denial.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome.
Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange
of trial exhibits.
15. If you denied Request for Admission No. 1 0, produce any and all documents which support .
such denial.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and
burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket
regarding the exchange of trial exhibits.
16. If you denied Request for Admission No. 1 1, produce any and all documents which support
such denial.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and
burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket
regarding the exchange of trial exhibits.
17. If you denied Request for Admission No. 12, produce any and all documents which support
such denial.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome.
Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the
exchange of trial exhibits.
18. If you denied Request for Admission No. 13, produce any and all documents which support
such denial.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and
burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket
regarding the exchange of trial exhibits.
Page 3 of 71.9» If you denied Request for Admission No. 14, produce any and all documents which support
such denial.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome.
Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange
of trial exhibits.
20. If you denied Request for Admission No. 15, produce any and all documents which support
such denial
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome.
Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange
of trial exhibits.
21. If you denied Request for Admission No. 16; produce any and all documents which support
such denial.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome.
Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the
exchange of trial exhibits.
22. If you answered Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 19 in the affirmative, please provide a copy of
any and all documents evidencing proof of any such payment(s).
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome.
Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the
exchange of trial exhibits.
23. If you answered Interrogatory No. 20 in the affirmative, please provide a copy of any and all
documents evidencing proof of any such payment(s).
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome.
Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the
exchange of trial exhibits.
24. Any and all documents relating to the ownership of the Property, defined above in No. 3 of
the definitions.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad, and burdensome.
Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the
exchange of trial exhibits.
Page 40f725. Any and all documentsirelating to the Property, defined above in No. 3 of the definitions. Si
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome.
Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the
exchange of trial exhibits.
26. Any and all documents, including, but not limited to correspondence, from Defendant to
Plaintiff, its agents or attorneys, relating to the subject matter of this suit.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome.
Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of
trial exhibits.
27. Any and all documents, including, but not limited to correspondence, from Plaintiff, its agents
or attorneys, to Defendant, relating to the subject matter of this suit.
RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and
burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket
regarding the exchange of trial exhibits.
Page 5 of 7OMOTAYO J. LAWAL’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSIONS
REQUEST NO. 1:
Admit that attached hereto as Exhibit is a true, correct, and genuine copy of the Declaration.
RESPONSE: Defendant can neither admit nor deny. (REASON: Not a clear copy)
REOUEST NO. 2:
Admit that Brightwater Homeowners Association is the authorized governing body of that one
certain residential subdivision known as Lakeside Meadows at Brightwater, pursuant to the
Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit " I.»
RESPONSE: Defendant admits to the extent that the Plaintiff is the authorized governing body.
Defendant can neither admit nor deny anything regarding Plaintiff's “Exh. 1.” (REASON: “Exh.
1” is not a clear copy of anything).
REQUESTNO. 3:
Admit that attached hereto as Exhibit "2" is a true, correct, and genuine copy of the General
Warranty Deed by which you obtained title to the Property.
RESPONSE: Defendant can neither deny nor admit. (REASON: “Exh. 2” is not a clear copy of
anything,
REQUEST NO. 4:
Admit that Defendant is the record owner of the Property as reflected by the General Warranty
Deed, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "2."
RESPONSE: Defendant admits that he is the owner of the property mentioned in the lawsuit.
Defendant otherwise deny anything relating to “Exhibit 2”
REQUESTNO. 5:
Admit that you own the Property, subject to the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit 1 ."
RESPONSE: Defendant can neither admit nor deny. (REASON: Not a clear copy)
REQUESTNO. 6:
Admit that Plaintiff is authorized to levy and collect assessments from the owners of property in
Lakeside Meadows at Brightwater, in accordance with the Declaration, a true and correct copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
RESPONSE: Defendant can neither admit nor deny. (REASON: “Exh. 1” is not a clear copy of
anything)
REQUESTNO. 7:
Admit that as an owner of the Property, Defendant is a member of Brightwater HomeownersAssociation, pursuant to the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit"1."
RESPONSE: Defendant can neither admit nor deny. (REASON: “Exh. 1” is not a clear copy of
anything)
REQUEST NO. 8:
Admit that as a member of Brightwater Homeowners Association, Defendant is obligated to pay
assessments as imposed by Plaintiffs Board of Directors pursuant to the Declaration, a true and
correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1. "
RESPONSE: Defendant can neither admit nor deny. (REASON: “Exh. 1” is not a clear copy of
anything)
REQUEST NO. 9:
Admit that the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "I, »
provides for interest and late charges to accrue on delinquent assessments in the event of late
payment of such assessments.
RESPONSE: Defendant can neither admit nor deny. (REASON: “Exh. 1” is not a clear copy of
anything)
REQUESTNO. 10:
Admit that pursuant to the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit " 1 , Plaintiff has levied assessments against the Property representing Defendant's pro rata
share of the common expenses of Lakeside Meadows at Brightwater.
RESPONSE: Defendant can neither admit nor deny. (REASON: “Exh. 1” is not a clear copy of
anything)
REQUEST NO. 11:
Admit that assessments levied by Plaintiff on the Property for 2017 and 2018 are unpaid.
RESPONSE: Deny.
REQUESTNO. 12:
Admit that Defendant has failed to make certain payments of maintenance assessments due
for 2017 and 2018, pursuant to the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit "I .'
RESPONSE: Deny.
REQUESTNO. 13:
Admit that Plaintiff has timely performed all of the conditions required to be performed on its part
under the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit " 1 , " and all
conditions precedent to Plaintiffs right to collect the assessments under said Declaration have
occurred.
RESPONSE: Deny.
nm
weRE UEST NO. 14:
Admit that Plaintiff made formal written demand upon Defendant for payment of the delinquent
maintenance assessments assessed on the Property.
RESPONSE: Deny
REQUEST NO. 15:
Admit that Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees incurred in relation to bringing
this suit to enforce the terms and provisions of the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
RESPONSE: Deny.
REQUEST NO. 16:
Admit that the assessments, interest, late charges, and reasonable attorney's fees are secured by a
lien against the Property, which lien is retained in the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
RESPONSE: Deny.
w
WwOMOTAYO J. LAWAL’S RESPONSE PLAINTIFF’ S INTERROGATORIES
Identify the person answering these Interrogatories and any and all persons who assisted
such person in answering these Interrogatories.
ANSWER: Omotayo J. Lawal.
Identify any and all documents which constitute or contain matters relevant to the subject
matter of this suit.
ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad, burdensome,
and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. Subject to this objection, Defendant
will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits.
If you denied Request for Admission No. 1, state each and every fact and/or circumstance
which supports such denial.
ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and
asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument.
If you denied Request for Admission No. 2, state each and every fact and/or circumstance
which supports such denial.
ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad,
and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument.
If you denied Request for Admission No. 3, state each and every fact and/or circumstance
which supports such denial.
ANSWER: ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous,
overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument.
If you denied Request for Admission No. 4, state each and every fact and/or circumstance
which supports such denial.
ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad,
and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument.
If you denied Request for Admission No. 5, state each and every fact and/or circumstance
which supports such denial.
ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad,
and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument.
If you denied Request for Admission No. 6, state each and every fact and/or circumstance
which supports such denial.
ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad,
and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument.
Page 1 of 49. If you denied Request for Admission No. 7, state each and every fact and/or circumstance
which supports such denial. -
ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad,
and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument.
10. If you denied Request for Admission No. 8, state each and every fact and/or circumstance
which supports such denial
ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad,
and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument.
11. — If you denied Request for Admission No. 9, state each and every fact and/or circumstance
which supports such denial.
ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad,
and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument.
12; If you denied Request for Admission No. 10, state each and every fact and/or circumstance
which supports such denial
ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad,
and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument.
13 If you denied Request for Admission No. 11, state each and every fact and/or circumstance
which supports such denial.
ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad,
and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument
14 If you denied Request for Admission No. 12, state each and every fact and/or circumstance
which supports such denial
ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad,
and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument.
15 If you denied Request for Admission No. 13, state each and every fact and/or circumstance
which supports such denial.
ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad,
and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument.
16. If you denied Request for Admission No. 14, state each and every fact and/or circumstance
which supports such denial.
ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad,
and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument.
Page 2 of 4@o01/002
joo1/002
17. If you denied Request for _ Admission No. 15, state each and every factand/or
circumstance which supports such denial.
ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks
the Defendant to marshal all its argument.
18. If you denied Request for Admission No. 16, state each and every fact and/or circumstance
which supports such denial.
ANSWER: ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly
_ broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument.
19. Have you made any payments to Plaintiff or Plaintiffs agents from June 12, 1996, through
the present?
ANSWER: Yes.
20. Has anyone other than Defendant made payments to Plaintiff or Plaintiffs agents on behalf
of Defendant from June 12, 1996, through the present?
ANSWER: Possibly.
Zi. If you have answered Interrogatory 19 and/or Interrogatory No. 20 in the affirmative, please
state the date, payor, and amount of each payment made by Defendant or by others, on behalf of
Defendant, to Plaintiff or Plaintiffs agents from June 12, 1996, through the present?
ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatories as being burdensome and overly broad.
Omotayo J. Lawal
Page 3 of 4THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TT Bend
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Omotayo J. Lawal,
who being by me first duly sworn, deposed and said that he is the Defendant in the above-entitled
and numbered cause, that he has read the foregoing Answers to Interrogatories, and that each is,
within his personal knowledge, true and correct
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME by the said Omotayo J. Lawal on the
Q2oh day of Mavch 2018, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office
(Webra ing
Npipry Public in and for the Spate of Texas
My Notary ID # 128810697 CYNTHIA DiA2
Expires December 16, 2019 = zi
Printed/Typed Name of Notary Public
‘
* My Commission Expires: _ | 2 I (ef ica
CYNTHIA DIAZ
Page 4 of 4CAUSE NO. 17-DVC-246998
BRIGHTWATER HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
Plaintiff
Vs.
OMOTAYO J. LAWAL and
IYABODE O. LAWAL
Defendants
§ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
Fort Bend County — 240" Judicial
District Court
MOM MOM MMM
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
To: BRIGHTWATER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, through its
attorney of record, Richard E. Bartley, 14811 St. Mary's Lane, Suite 270, Houston, Texas
77099.
COMES NOW, OMOTAYO J. LAWAL, ESQ. Defendant, herein files his responses to
Plaintiff, BRIGHTWATER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION’S request for disclosure pursuant
to Rules 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW FIRM OF O.J. LAWAL & ASSOCIATES
/s/Omotayo Lawal
Omotayo “O.J.” Lawal. Esq.
TBN: 24004144
8700 Commerce Park, Ste 202
Houston, Texas 77036
Phone: 713-773-0600
Fax: 713-773-0699
Email: ojlawal24@msn.comRESPONSES
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.1:
Please disclose the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit;
Response:
BRIGHTWATER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, PLAINTIFF
OMOTAYO J. LAWAL, DEFENDANT
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.2:
Please disclose the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;
Response: None at this time.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.3: Please disclose the legal theories and, in general,
the factual bases of the responding party’s claims or defenses to the matters set out in
Plaintiff's Original Petition, or to any issue relating thereto.
Response: Please see Defendant’s Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.4:
Please disclose the amount and any method of calculating economic damages; if you
claim that such amount is substantially different than what the Plaintiff has claimed.
Response: None at this time. Defendant reserves the right to supplement.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.5:
Please disclose the name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge
of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person’s connection with the case;
Response: Omotayo Lawal, Defendant. He will testify to the facts of this case and
his affirmative defenses.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.6:
For each and every testifying expert witness, please disclose the following:
(a) the expert’s name, address, and telephone number;RESPONSE:
(b) The subject matter on which the expert will testify;
RESPONSE: N/A
© The general substance of the expert’s mental impressions and opinions and a
brief summary of the basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed
by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party, documents reflecting
such information;
RESPONSE: N/A
(d) If the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control
of the responding party:
RESPONSE: N/A
(1) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations
that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the
expert in anticipation of the expert’s testimony; and
RESPONSE: N/A
(2) _ the expert’s current resume and bibliography;
RESPONSE: Defendant has not designated an expert at this time.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.7:
Please disclose any indemnity and insuring agreements.
RESPONSE: None.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.8:
Please disclose any settlement agreements.
RESPONSE: None.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.9:
Please disclose any witness statements.
RESPONSE: Noneie
LOST DOCUMENTS
Preparer: N/A
Addressor: N/A
Addressee: N/A
All Recipients:
Names of Persons To Whom Distributed or Shown:
Date Prepared:
Date Transmitted:
Date Received:
Description of Contents and Subject Matter:
Page 6 of 710. Date of Destruction:
11. Manner of Destruction:
12. Name, Title and Address of Person Authorizing Destruction:
13. Name, Title and Address of Person Destroying Document:
14. Description of Efforts to Locate Document and Copies of It:
Page 7 of 7ssociates, PC oor
03/26/2018 MON 18:49 FAX 8329798582 Oyedemi &
FOIE IIE II III IE
*** PAX TX REPORT ***
FOI IO TOTO AI EE
TRANSMISSION OK
JOB NO. 2254
DESTINATION ADDRESS 2814931539
PSWD/SUBADDRESS
DESTINATION ID
ST. TIME 03/26 18:45
USAGE T 03' 27
PGS. 19
RESULT OK
NO: _17-DCV-246998
BRIGHTWATER HOMEOWNERS ) _ INTHE DISTRICT COURT
ASSOCIATION )
) 240th SUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
vs. )
)
- OMOTAYO J. LAWAL ) FORT BEND, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
TO: Defendant Brightwater Homeowners Association, and/or their attorney of record, Richard
E. Bartley, 14811 St. Mary’s Lane, Suite 270, Houston, Texas 77079.
COMES NOW, Defendant Omotayo J, Lawal, and provides the following objections,
answers and responses to Plaintiff's Request for admissions, request for production,
interrogatories and Request for Disclosures while reserving the right to amend or supplement
the said answers and responses.
Respectfully submitted,
OYEDEMI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
/s/wakiloyedemi
Wakil O. Oyedemi, Esq.
TBN: 24084291
101 Southwestern Boulevard, Suite 200
Sugar Land, Texas 77478
Tel: (832) 939-8578
Fax: (832) 939-8582
Email: ooyedemi@oyedemilaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
OMOTAYO J. LAWAL
Preview
Filed 6/12/2018 11:03 AM Annie Rebecca Elliott District Clerk Fort Bend County, Texas Layla Helton CAUSE NO: 17-DCV-246998 BRIGHTWATER HOMEOWNERS) _ IN THE DISTRICT COURT ASSOCIATION ) ) 240th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT vs. ) ) ) OMOTAYO J. LAWAL FORT BEND, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Omotayo J. Lawal, Defendant in the above styled and numbered cause, through their attorney of record and file this response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, asking the Court to deny the said motion as it was based on falsehood, and because there are genuine issues of material fact in this case that must be decided by the jury. In support of this response, Defendant would respectfully show as follows: 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND A brief synopsis of the state of the case is as follows: i Plaintiff filed the Petition in this case on December 5, 2017. ii The Defendant was served with the Petition and filed and Answer on February 1, 2018. iii Defendant hired the undersigned attorney on March 26, 2018 and counsel filed an entry of appearance on that same date. iv. Plaintiff served the Defendant with interrogatories and request for admission on February 28, 2018. Defendant provided the responses to the said discovery responses on March 26, 2018, which is two days before any responses was due. The said responses was sent to the Plaintiff via Plaintiffs facsimile on record, which is (281) 493-1539. se en RMSE RR AA A aM MESES SY SS SS SES SMES FESS Brightwater v. 0.J. Lawal/Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's MSJ Page 1iv. As reflected in the responses, especially the requests for admission, Defendant denied owing the Plaintiff any amount at all. Defendant also denied that the Plaintiff satisfied any condition precedent to the collection of any alleged debt. Furthermore, Defendant also denied that the Plaintiff was entitled to any attorneys’ fees or interests related to the alleged debt it is trying to collect by virtue of this lawsuit. A true and correct copy of the discovery requests is hereby attached as “Exhibit 1” while the fax confirmation page is attached as “Exhibit 2.” v. On or about April 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, on the false assertion that the Plaintiff never received Defendant’s responses to Plaintiffs requests for admission. In essence, Plaintiffs motion is based on deemed admission. This is despite the fact that the Plaintiff has received the responses at least two days before they became due. 2. Defendant asks the Honorable Court to deny Plaintiffs motion since the motion is baseless, fraudulent, and should never have been filed at all, since there was no deemed admission in this case. Since the Plaintiff deliberately filed the said motion to deceive the Court despite knowing the true state of things on this matter, Defendant asks the Court top impose the costs of filing a response in this case, as well as the cost of having to appear at the hearing set by the Plaintiff in this case. 35 As a deterrent to prevent the Plaintiff from filing such baseless motion in the future, Defendant asks the Court to impose the sum of $1,500.00 on the Plaintiff, followed by a stern warning that the Plaintiff must cease and desist from filing any such baseless motion in the future. Defendant believes that only steps of this nature could prohibit this Plaintiff from repeating its actions in the future. The Court should then deny Plaintiffs motion. Brightwater v. 0.J. Lawal/Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's MS] Page 24. Althougli no other response is necessary other than that there is no deemed admission as stated above, should the Court decide to not summarily deny Plaintiffs motion, the Court should deny the motion on the basis that there are genuine issues of fact that warrant a trial in this case. To prevail in its Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff is required to prove that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. TEX.R.CIV.P.166a(c). The Court must accept as true evidence favoring the non-movant. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management, 690 S.W.2d. 546, 548-549 (Tex. 1985), The Court must make every reasonable inference in favor of the non-movant. M.D. Anderson Hospital v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22, 23 (Tex. 2000); Nixon, 690, S.W.2d at 549. The trial Court must also resolve all doubts about the existence of a genuine issue of material fact against the movant. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-549. 5 In this case, Defendant denied owing this Plaintiff any past due assessments. The Defendant has raised many defenses to Plaintiff's claim, including Plaintiff's failure to satisfy conditions precedent to the imposition of the assessment or the collection of same. Such conditions include the need to call a meeting of all homeowners in which the imposition of the assessments must be on the agenda and discussed, with the approval of majority of all homeowners voting based on all homes within the subdivision. 6. Not only the above, Plaintiff has an obligation to inform the Defendant of the imposition of the assessment after the approval of all homeowners, the specific amount approved, and when such is due. Without satisfying these conditions, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any assessments as it has not satisfied the conditions precedent to the collection of the assessment. Not only in Defendant’s First Amended Answer has the Defendant raised this issue of condition precedent, Defendant has sent to the Plaintiff discovery requests that addressed these issues, which the en —————————— Brightwater v. 0.J. Lawal/Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's MS] Page 3Plaintiff is yet to respond to. Thus;*there is a genuine issue of fact on whether the Plaintiff is owing any assessment, how much is due, and whether conditions precedent to the collection of any assessment has been satisfied. This warrants that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment at this stage of the litigation. 4. There is also a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any interests, attorneys’ fees or other fees related to the collection of the assessment the Plaintiff is trying to collect. Defendant has asserted that the Plaintiff is not owed any attorneys’ fees in both its First Amended Answer and its responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. As part of this defense, Defendant has asserted that Plaintiff's alleged attorneys’ fees are not due, the alleged attorneys’ fees are exorbitant and unreasonable. This is a case in which the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant owed $735.00 in unfounded “assessment”. However, in its analysis, Plaintiff is seeking to collect over Five Thousand Dollars in pre-litigation collection fees under various disguises from the Defendant. 8 Instead of addressing these issues in its pending responses to Defendant’s discovery requests, Plaintiff has engaged in the filing of a baseless motion for summary judgment and stipulating that it had made efforts to collect these spurious fees from the Defendant or his attorney, without telling the Court that the additional $7,000.00 fees the Plaintiff is trying to collect for an alleged debt of $735.00 is so spurious and unreasonable to the point of almost being satanic. There is therefore a genuine issue of material fact regarding Plaintiff's alleged attorneys’ fees and other cooked up fees, which must be address at the trial of this case and cannot be addressed at a summary judgment. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment must therefore be denied. ee ———————— Brightwater v. O.J. Lawal/Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's MS} Page 49. The above and many other issues, when considered in favor of the Plaintiff as the court should, require that the Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment must be denied. Defendant therefore respectfully asks the Court to deny the said motion and allow this matter to proceed to trial on the merits. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as baseless and based on total falsehood since there is no deemed admission. Defendant also asks the Court to impose the sum of $1,500.00 for filing the baseless motion, and for all further relief, special or general, legal or equitable, as may be shown that Defendant is justly entitled to receive. Respectfully submitted, OYEDEMI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/wakiloyedemi Wakil O. Oyedemi TBN: 24084291 101 Southwestern Boulevard, Suite 200 Sugar Land, Texas 77478 Phone: 832-939-8578 Fax: 8320939-8582 ooyedemi@oyedemilaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANT OMOTAYO J, LAWAL eae Brightwater v. O.J. Lawal/Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's MS] Page 5CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 11, 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was forwarded to the attorney for the Plaintiff, Mr. Richard Bartley, 14811 St. Mary’s Lane, Suite 270, Houston, Texas 77079 by facsimile to (281) 493-1539, or by electronic transmission. ‘s/wakiloyedemi Wakil O. Oyedemi Attorney for the Defendant Brightwater v. 0.J. Lawal/Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's MS} Page 6STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF HARRIS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this 8th day of June, 2018, appeared Omotayo. J. Lawal, who is known to me personally, and who upon his oath stated and deposed that the following statements are true and correct: 1 “My name is Omotayo J. Lawal. Iam more than 18 years old. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and the facts are true and correct, accordingly I am competent to make this affidavit 2 I am the owner of the property known as 4702 Brookside Court, Missouri City, Texas 77479. I have on many occasions challenged the Brightwater Homeowners association regarding the yearly assessment the association imposes on all homeowners including mine, without the approval of the owners of the property as required, and without adequate notice or absence of any notice of any meeting in which the issues of the yearly assessment would be discussed prior to the imposition of the said assessment. 3. Brightwater homeowner’s association did not send me any notice of any meeting before the fees for the years 2016, 2017 or any other year was imposed, as I would have been at such meetings. Even after the said assessments were imposed, I was still not notified. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, I did not receive any notice of collection of any debt from the Brightwater Homeowners Association to pay such assessment. I knew any amount was pending when the lawsuit was filed 4. Furthermore, I know as a fact that the fees and attorneys fees and other sums added to the yearly assessment are exorbitant, excessive, unjustifiable and unreasonable. I therefore challenged the said fees as such should not be imposed, especially when the homeowners association failed to perform its duties of letting me as an owner know when any assessment would be levied as parts of y right as a homeowner.” 5 “Affiant sayeth not” as Omotayo J. Lawal 7? SWORN and SUBSCRIBED before me this Sih day of Sune 2018. nt Pe PATRICIA ORTIZ SORNSON Notary Public, State of Texas| 4 ‘ Comm. Expires 02-22-2020 ; Notary ID 130548360 me eee eee = Notary Public, State of Texas Brightwater v. 0.J. Lawal/Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's MS} Page 8VERIFICATION STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF HARRIS BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared Wakil O. Oyedemi, who, being by me duly sworn on oath, deposed and stated that he is the attorney for the Defendant in the above-mentioned cause, and that the information contained in the foregoing Defendant’s Response to Motion for summary judgment , especially regarding the fact that responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests were provided to the Plaintiff on March 26, 2018, is within his personal knowledge, and is true and correct. __ walleye: Wakil O. Oyedemi SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this }\fA_ day of Jum _, 2018, to certify which witness my hand and official seal. CYNTHIA DIAZ My Notary ID # 128810697 Expires December 16, 2019CAUSE NO: 17-DCV-246998 BRIGHTWATER HOMEOWNERS __) IN THE DISTRICT COURT ASSOCIATION ) ) 240th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT vs. ) ) ) * OMOTAYO J. LAWAL FORT BEND, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE TO: Defendant Brightwater Homeowners Association, and/or their attorney of record, Richard E. Bartley, 14811 St. Mary’s Lane, Suite 270, Houston, Texas 77079. COMES NOW, Defendant Omotayo J. Lawal, and provides the following objections, answers and responses to Plaintiff's Request for admissions, request for production, interrogatories and Request for Disclosures while reserving the right to amend or supplement the said answers and responses. Respectfully submitted, OYEDEMI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/wakiloyedemi Wakil O. Oyedemi, Esq TBN: 24084291 101 Southwestern Boulevard, Suite 200 Sugar Land, Texas 77478 Tel: (832) 939-8578 Fax: (832) 939-8582 Email: ooyederr nilaw.com ATTORNEYS DEFENDANT OMOTAYO J. LAWAL il Brightwater HOA v. Omotayo J. Lawal/Responses to Discovery Requests Page 1CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 26, 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance was forwarded to the attorney for the Plaintiff, Mr. Richard Bartley, 14811 St. Mary’s Lane, Suite 270, Houston, Texas 77079 by facsimile to (281) 4921539, or by electronic transmission. 443- s/wakiloyedemi Wakil O. Oyedemi Attorney for the Defendant Brightwater HOA v. Omotayo J. Lawal/Responses to Discovery Requests Page 2DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1. Any and all documents identified by Defendant in Defendant's response to Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 2 RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad, burdensome, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. Any and all documents disclosed by Defendant in Defendant's response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure No. 6(d). RESPONSE: None at present. Any and all documents disclosed by Defendant in Defendant's response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure No. 7. RESPONSE: None. Any and all documents disclosed by Defendant in Defendant's response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure No. 8. RESPONSE: None. Any and all documents disclosed by Defendant in Defendant's response to Plaintiffs Request for Disclosure No. 9. RESPONSE: Defendant object on the basis of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, and on the basis that the request is a fishing expedition. Subject to these objections, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding exchange of trial exhibits. If you denied Request for Admission No. 1, produce any and all documents which support such denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad, burdensome, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. Page lof 77. If you denied Request for AdmissionNo. 2, produce any and all documents which support such denial. RESPONSE: RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad, burdensome, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 8. If you denied Request for Admission No. 3, produce any and all documents which support such denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad, burdensome, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 9. If you denied Request for Admission No. 4, produce any and all documents which support such denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad, burdensome, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits 10. If you denied Request for Admission No. 5, produce any and all documents which support such denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 11 If you denied Request for Admission No. 6, produce any and all documents which support such denial RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 12. Ifyou denied Request for Admission No. 7, produce any and all documents which support such denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. Page 2 of 713. If you denied Request for Admission No. 8, produceany and all documents which support such denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 14. If you denied Request for Admission No. 9, produce any and all documents which support such denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 15. If you denied Request for Admission No. 1 0, produce any and all documents which support . such denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 16. If you denied Request for Admission No. 1 1, produce any and all documents which support such denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 17. If you denied Request for Admission No. 12, produce any and all documents which support such denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 18. If you denied Request for Admission No. 13, produce any and all documents which support such denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. Page 3 of 71.9» If you denied Request for Admission No. 14, produce any and all documents which support such denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 20. If you denied Request for Admission No. 15, produce any and all documents which support such denial RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 21. If you denied Request for Admission No. 16; produce any and all documents which support such denial. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 22. If you answered Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 19 in the affirmative, please provide a copy of any and all documents evidencing proof of any such payment(s). RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 23. If you answered Interrogatory No. 20 in the affirmative, please provide a copy of any and all documents evidencing proof of any such payment(s). RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 24. Any and all documents relating to the ownership of the Property, defined above in No. 3 of the definitions. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad, and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. Page 40f725. Any and all documentsirelating to the Property, defined above in No. 3 of the definitions. Si RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 26. Any and all documents, including, but not limited to correspondence, from Defendant to Plaintiff, its agents or attorneys, relating to the subject matter of this suit. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. 27. Any and all documents, including, but not limited to correspondence, from Plaintiff, its agents or attorneys, to Defendant, relating to the subject matter of this suit. RESPONSE: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad and burdensome. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. Page 5 of 7OMOTAYO J. LAWAL’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST NO. 1: Admit that attached hereto as Exhibit is a true, correct, and genuine copy of the Declaration. RESPONSE: Defendant can neither admit nor deny. (REASON: Not a clear copy) REOUEST NO. 2: Admit that Brightwater Homeowners Association is the authorized governing body of that one certain residential subdivision known as Lakeside Meadows at Brightwater, pursuant to the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit " I.» RESPONSE: Defendant admits to the extent that the Plaintiff is the authorized governing body. Defendant can neither admit nor deny anything regarding Plaintiff's “Exh. 1.” (REASON: “Exh. 1” is not a clear copy of anything). REQUESTNO. 3: Admit that attached hereto as Exhibit "2" is a true, correct, and genuine copy of the General Warranty Deed by which you obtained title to the Property. RESPONSE: Defendant can neither deny nor admit. (REASON: “Exh. 2” is not a clear copy of anything, REQUEST NO. 4: Admit that Defendant is the record owner of the Property as reflected by the General Warranty Deed, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "2." RESPONSE: Defendant admits that he is the owner of the property mentioned in the lawsuit. Defendant otherwise deny anything relating to “Exhibit 2” REQUESTNO. 5: Admit that you own the Property, subject to the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 ." RESPONSE: Defendant can neither admit nor deny. (REASON: Not a clear copy) REQUESTNO. 6: Admit that Plaintiff is authorized to levy and collect assessments from the owners of property in Lakeside Meadows at Brightwater, in accordance with the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1." RESPONSE: Defendant can neither admit nor deny. (REASON: “Exh. 1” is not a clear copy of anything) REQUESTNO. 7: Admit that as an owner of the Property, Defendant is a member of Brightwater HomeownersAssociation, pursuant to the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"1." RESPONSE: Defendant can neither admit nor deny. (REASON: “Exh. 1” is not a clear copy of anything) REQUEST NO. 8: Admit that as a member of Brightwater Homeowners Association, Defendant is obligated to pay assessments as imposed by Plaintiffs Board of Directors pursuant to the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1. " RESPONSE: Defendant can neither admit nor deny. (REASON: “Exh. 1” is not a clear copy of anything) REQUEST NO. 9: Admit that the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "I, » provides for interest and late charges to accrue on delinquent assessments in the event of late payment of such assessments. RESPONSE: Defendant can neither admit nor deny. (REASON: “Exh. 1” is not a clear copy of anything) REQUESTNO. 10: Admit that pursuant to the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit " 1 , Plaintiff has levied assessments against the Property representing Defendant's pro rata share of the common expenses of Lakeside Meadows at Brightwater. RESPONSE: Defendant can neither admit nor deny. (REASON: “Exh. 1” is not a clear copy of anything) REQUEST NO. 11: Admit that assessments levied by Plaintiff on the Property for 2017 and 2018 are unpaid. RESPONSE: Deny. REQUESTNO. 12: Admit that Defendant has failed to make certain payments of maintenance assessments due for 2017 and 2018, pursuant to the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "I .' RESPONSE: Deny. REQUESTNO. 13: Admit that Plaintiff has timely performed all of the conditions required to be performed on its part under the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit " 1 , " and all conditions precedent to Plaintiffs right to collect the assessments under said Declaration have occurred. RESPONSE: Deny. nm weRE UEST NO. 14: Admit that Plaintiff made formal written demand upon Defendant for payment of the delinquent maintenance assessments assessed on the Property. RESPONSE: Deny REQUEST NO. 15: Admit that Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees incurred in relation to bringing this suit to enforce the terms and provisions of the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1." RESPONSE: Deny. REQUEST NO. 16: Admit that the assessments, interest, late charges, and reasonable attorney's fees are secured by a lien against the Property, which lien is retained in the Declaration, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "1." RESPONSE: Deny. w WwOMOTAYO J. LAWAL’S RESPONSE PLAINTIFF’ S INTERROGATORIES Identify the person answering these Interrogatories and any and all persons who assisted such person in answering these Interrogatories. ANSWER: Omotayo J. Lawal. Identify any and all documents which constitute or contain matters relevant to the subject matter of this suit. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is overly broad, burdensome, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. Subject to this objection, Defendant will comply with the Court’s docket regarding the exchange of trial exhibits. If you denied Request for Admission No. 1, state each and every fact and/or circumstance which supports such denial. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. If you denied Request for Admission No. 2, state each and every fact and/or circumstance which supports such denial. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. If you denied Request for Admission No. 3, state each and every fact and/or circumstance which supports such denial. ANSWER: ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. If you denied Request for Admission No. 4, state each and every fact and/or circumstance which supports such denial. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. If you denied Request for Admission No. 5, state each and every fact and/or circumstance which supports such denial. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. If you denied Request for Admission No. 6, state each and every fact and/or circumstance which supports such denial. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. Page 1 of 49. If you denied Request for Admission No. 7, state each and every fact and/or circumstance which supports such denial. - ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. 10. If you denied Request for Admission No. 8, state each and every fact and/or circumstance which supports such denial ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. 11. — If you denied Request for Admission No. 9, state each and every fact and/or circumstance which supports such denial. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. 12; If you denied Request for Admission No. 10, state each and every fact and/or circumstance which supports such denial ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. 13 If you denied Request for Admission No. 11, state each and every fact and/or circumstance which supports such denial. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument 14 If you denied Request for Admission No. 12, state each and every fact and/or circumstance which supports such denial ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. 15 If you denied Request for Admission No. 13, state each and every fact and/or circumstance which supports such denial. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. 16. If you denied Request for Admission No. 14, state each and every fact and/or circumstance which supports such denial. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. Page 2 of 4@o01/002 joo1/002 17. If you denied Request for _ Admission No. 15, state each and every factand/or circumstance which supports such denial. ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. 18. If you denied Request for Admission No. 16, state each and every fact and/or circumstance which supports such denial. ANSWER: ANSWER: Defendant objects on the basis that this request is ambiguous, overly _ broad, and asks the Defendant to marshal all its argument. 19. Have you made any payments to Plaintiff or Plaintiffs agents from June 12, 1996, through the present? ANSWER: Yes. 20. Has anyone other than Defendant made payments to Plaintiff or Plaintiffs agents on behalf of Defendant from June 12, 1996, through the present? ANSWER: Possibly. Zi. If you have answered Interrogatory 19 and/or Interrogatory No. 20 in the affirmative, please state the date, payor, and amount of each payment made by Defendant or by others, on behalf of Defendant, to Plaintiff or Plaintiffs agents from June 12, 1996, through the present? ANSWER: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatories as being burdensome and overly broad. Omotayo J. Lawal Page 3 of 4THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TT Bend BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Omotayo J. Lawal, who being by me first duly sworn, deposed and said that he is the Defendant in the above-entitled and numbered cause, that he has read the foregoing Answers to Interrogatories, and that each is, within his personal knowledge, true and correct SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME by the said Omotayo J. Lawal on the Q2oh day of Mavch 2018, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office (Webra ing Npipry Public in and for the Spate of Texas My Notary ID # 128810697 CYNTHIA DiA2 Expires December 16, 2019 = zi Printed/Typed Name of Notary Public ‘ * My Commission Expires: _ | 2 I (ef ica CYNTHIA DIAZ Page 4 of 4CAUSE NO. 17-DVC-246998 BRIGHTWATER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Plaintiff Vs. OMOTAYO J. LAWAL and IYABODE O. LAWAL Defendants § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS Fort Bend County — 240" Judicial District Court MOM MOM MMM DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE To: BRIGHTWATER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, through its attorney of record, Richard E. Bartley, 14811 St. Mary's Lane, Suite 270, Houston, Texas 77099. COMES NOW, OMOTAYO J. LAWAL, ESQ. Defendant, herein files his responses to Plaintiff, BRIGHTWATER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION’S request for disclosure pursuant to Rules 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully submitted, LAW FIRM OF O.J. LAWAL & ASSOCIATES /s/Omotayo Lawal Omotayo “O.J.” Lawal. Esq. TBN: 24004144 8700 Commerce Park, Ste 202 Houston, Texas 77036 Phone: 713-773-0600 Fax: 713-773-0699 Email: ojlawal24@msn.comRESPONSES REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.1: Please disclose the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit; Response: BRIGHTWATER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, PLAINTIFF OMOTAYO J. LAWAL, DEFENDANT REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.2: Please disclose the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties; Response: None at this time. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.3: Please disclose the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding party’s claims or defenses to the matters set out in Plaintiff's Original Petition, or to any issue relating thereto. Response: Please see Defendant’s Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.4: Please disclose the amount and any method of calculating economic damages; if you claim that such amount is substantially different than what the Plaintiff has claimed. Response: None at this time. Defendant reserves the right to supplement. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.5: Please disclose the name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified person’s connection with the case; Response: Omotayo Lawal, Defendant. He will testify to the facts of this case and his affirmative defenses. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.6: For each and every testifying expert witness, please disclose the following: (a) the expert’s name, address, and telephone number;RESPONSE: (b) The subject matter on which the expert will testify; RESPONSE: N/A © The general substance of the expert’s mental impressions and opinions and a brief summary of the basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party, documents reflecting such information; RESPONSE: N/A (d) If the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the control of the responding party: RESPONSE: N/A (1) all documents, tangible things, reports, models, or data compilations that have been provided to, reviewed by, or prepared by or for the expert in anticipation of the expert’s testimony; and RESPONSE: N/A (2) _ the expert’s current resume and bibliography; RESPONSE: Defendant has not designated an expert at this time. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.7: Please disclose any indemnity and insuring agreements. RESPONSE: None. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.8: Please disclose any settlement agreements. RESPONSE: None. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE NO.9: Please disclose any witness statements. RESPONSE: Noneie LOST DOCUMENTS Preparer: N/A Addressor: N/A Addressee: N/A All Recipients: Names of Persons To Whom Distributed or Shown: Date Prepared: Date Transmitted: Date Received: Description of Contents and Subject Matter: Page 6 of 710. Date of Destruction: 11. Manner of Destruction: 12. Name, Title and Address of Person Authorizing Destruction: 13. Name, Title and Address of Person Destroying Document: 14. Description of Efforts to Locate Document and Copies of It: Page 7 of 7ssociates, PC oor 03/26/2018 MON 18:49 FAX 8329798582 Oyedemi & FOIE IIE II III IE *** PAX TX REPORT *** FOI IO TOTO AI EE TRANSMISSION OK JOB NO. 2254 DESTINATION ADDRESS 2814931539 PSWD/SUBADDRESS DESTINATION ID ST. TIME 03/26 18:45 USAGE T 03' 27 PGS. 19 RESULT OK NO: _17-DCV-246998 BRIGHTWATER HOMEOWNERS ) _ INTHE DISTRICT COURT ASSOCIATION ) ) 240th SUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT vs. ) ) - OMOTAYO J. LAWAL ) FORT BEND, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE TO: Defendant Brightwater Homeowners Association, and/or their attorney of record, Richard E. Bartley, 14811 St. Mary’s Lane, Suite 270, Houston, Texas 77079. COMES NOW, Defendant Omotayo J, Lawal, and provides the following objections, answers and responses to Plaintiff's Request for admissions, request for production, interrogatories and Request for Disclosures while reserving the right to amend or supplement the said answers and responses. Respectfully submitted, OYEDEMI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/wakiloyedemi Wakil O. Oyedemi, Esq. TBN: 24084291 101 Southwestern Boulevard, Suite 200 Sugar Land, Texas 77478 Tel: (832) 939-8578 Fax: (832) 939-8582 Email: ooyedemi@oyedemilaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT OMOTAYO J. LAWAL