|
Letter To Government
|
|
To:
|
|
|
|
Senator Jon Lindsay
|
|
Chair
|
Texas Intergovernmental Relations Committee
Texas Senate Logo
|
|
P.O. Box 12068, Capitol Station
|
|
Austin, Texas 78711
|
|
|
|
From:
|
|
American Homeowners Resource Center
|
|
San Juan Capistrano, California 92693 |
|
|
| |
May 27, 2002
|
| |
|
Re: Foreclosure for a Driveway Oil Stain - Stain on Texas Justice
|
|
|
| |
CAI lawyers who have a history of scamming property owners should not be sitting on the Texas Property Owners Task Force Panel making laws for Property Owners .
The following is a complaint sent to American Homeowners Resource Center about lawyers, Butler & Hailey, and judge William Yoeman of Houston, who ordered the foreclosure of Wu-Chi Chen's home for oil stains on a driveway. The government of Texas should be protecting its citizens against such legal atrocities and jailing the lawyers and judges who commit them.
On July 29, 2000, the law firm of Butler & Hailey (an HOA specialist firm) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Glencairn CIA (an HOA) against Wu-Chi Chen in JP Precinct 5, Place 2, before Judge William V. Yoeman, in Houston, Texas. The HOA sought civil damages, attorney's fees and costs in connection with the violation of following deed restriction: "Article IV. 8. Annoyances or Nuisances. No noxious offensive activity shall be carried on upon any Lot nor shall anything be done thereon which may become an annoyance to the neighborhood." The HOA alleged that Mr. Chen failed to remove an oil stain on the driveway of his rental property at 4423 Kaycee, Houston, Texas. Although the HOA sent Mr. Chen notices of the violation, the violation continued for seven days. As a result, the HOA sought statutory damages of $200/day, which totaled $1,400 in damages, plus attorneys fees, plus interest.
The constable attempted to serve Mr. Chen several times in late September 2000. On October 11, 2000, Judge Yoeman granted the HOA's motion to serve Mr. Chen by leaving a copy at his usual place of business or by delivering to anyone sixteen years or older at his usual abode. (It appears the HOA was attempting to serve Mr. Chen at the rental property, but I am not certain of this detail yet.) The constable attempted again to serve Mr. Chen on several occasions in late October 2000. On November 1, 2000, Judge Yoeman granted the HOA's motion to achieve service by leaving a copy at the usual place of business or leaving with someone over 16 at the usual abode, or by attaching to the door at the abode and sending by first class mail. Mr. Chen was "served" by this method on December 5, 2000.
In any case, Mr. Chen does appear to have obtained a copy of the lawsuit, because he filed a handwritten answer on December 18, 2000, stating the following: He had received a letter from the HOA about the oil stain. He spoke to the tenants at the house, and as a result the stain was power washed and cleaned. Several months later, an attorney for the HOA contacted Mr. Chen. Mr. Chen told the attorney that the oil stain had been cleaned. Mr. Chen made a special trip to check the stain and it was still clean. He reported this to the HOA attorney. The attorney agreed: (1) not to take any legal action until further notice, and (2) to submit Mr. Chen's findings to the HOA. Mr. Chen did not hear again from the attorney. Mr. Chen also mentioned the power washing and cleaning to the "inspector" for the HOA. She was supposed to check on this and get back to Mr. Chen to tell him if anything more needed to be done. She was not able to meet with him to discuss what more, if anything, needed to be done.
Trial was held on February 26, 2001. Ten days before trial, the HOA amended its lawsuit to include the information that Mr. Chen had been served, and to change the description of the violation from "the oil stain" to the "oil stains" and referring to them for the first time as a "recurring condition." The judge denied the claim for $1,400 in statutory damages, but he did award $38.09 in incidental costs (postage, photocopying, etc.), $1,890.25 in legal fees, and court costs of $20, plus interest at 10%.
On August 31, 2001, the HOA requested a writ of execution. On September 11, 2001, the judge granted the writ and scheduled the sale of Mr. Chen's house for December 4, 2001. (Normally JP court judgments can't be enforced by foreclosure, but in this case there is no homestead exemption, because the house is a rental property.)
Mr. Chen reportedly paid the law firm over $2,400 to stop the foreclosure earlier this week.
Date of report: November 28, 2001
|
|
