. ”CLOSEDM ©Q , ~ Cause NO. 1063505

v__;”§ VERNON KENT MAREE & § lN THE COUNTY CIVIL COURT §r FRONT ROW PARKlNG, INC. § ; § AT LAW NUMBER FoU,/R (4) ' § BALDEMAR (VAL) ZUNIGA § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER DISMISSING BILL OF REVIEW

On this 26th day of`August, 2015, this Court considered the motion filed by Respondent for bill of review, Baldemar (Val) Zuniga, to determine whether Petitioners for bill of review has established a prima facie case for a Bill of Review. Petitioners for bill of` review appeared in person and through counsel in opposition to the motion. Respondent f`or bill of review appeared in person and through counsel in support of the motion. The court having considered the papers filed in this action, considered the evidence admitted, the testimony of` witnesses, and having heard the arguments of` counsel, the Court grants Respondent for bill of review’s motion and dismisses Petitioners fM¢, Vemon Kent Maree and Front Row Parking, lnc.’s ction for Bill of Review, filed in this court on June 9, 2015.

The Court considered all elements f`or a bill ofreview and finds: (l ) the Petitioners in bill of review made an appearance in Cause No. 1029606; Bala'emar (Val) v. Vernon Kent Maree andFront Row Parking, Inc. through counsel, Troy Pradia; (2) on November 8, 2013, the Court signed its Order for Trial Setting in Cause No. 1029606 f`or nonjury trial on June 16, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. and gave notice to all counsel of record pursuant to the Texas Rule ofCivil Procedure; (3) on November 15, 2013, pursuant to the Court’ s Order, Plaintiff’ s counsel in that case gave notice of the trial setting to counsel for Defendants by facsimile pursuant to Rule 21a of` the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure; (4) Def`endants, although properly noticed to appear at trial, failed to appear and a defaultjudgment

was entered against them as reflected in the Court’s record; (5) in pursuing their Bill of Review, Petitioners for bill of review failed to prove that the rendering of the judgment against them was “unmixed with any fault or negligence on their own part,” specifically, failing to keep their counsel informed of their address, failing to inquire as to the status of the lawsuit even though they were aware of its existence, and failing to properly monitor the status of both their legal counsel and the progression of the lawsuit.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Petitioners for bill of review is dismissed; thatjudgment be entered in favor of Respondent for bill of review, Baldemar (Val) Zuniga, and against Petitioners for bill of`review, Vemon Kent Maree and Front Row Parking, lnc., dismissing the petition for bill of review. rz'é,ZOlS. sIGNED this A¢ the zi¢::°RDER's MEM°RANDUM' m to ha lof recordation, this |nstrume'nt reproductio nsdequm for the best ph°l° 'a vi\‘ls photo copy %§::g:#;g °f lll@glb"lfy. cargboii o(r: ' pBPSl'. etc. AH bl end chan e °°k°uls. the instrument was filed t:h:lr?egbi~g:g! at the time

30 3 iii 92 tim Sl!Z

mud rt gres- §‘L':W.z;.l .%t:§