Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 269 views

    Response in Opposition To Sanctions in Election Contest in Morris County Texas District Court

    Uploaded by

    Cody Wommack
    This document is Contestant Cody Wommack's response to a motion for sanctions filed by Contestee Marie Skipper in an election contest case. Wommack argues that Skipper's motion is inadequate and provides no evidence of bad faith, harassment, or that Wommack's pleadings are groundless. Wommack asserts that the parties have a legitimate disagreement over the interpretation of election laws and that sanctions are not meant for disputes over legal interpretation. Wommack requests that the court deny Skipper's motion for sanctions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Response in Opposition To Sanctions in Election Contest in Morris County Texas District Court

    Uploaded by

    Cody Wommack
    269 views5 pages
    This document is Contestant Cody Wommack's response to a motion for sanctions filed by Contestee Marie Skipper in an election contest case. Wommack argues that Skipper's motion is inadequate and provides no evidence of bad faith, harassment, or that Wommack's pleadings are groundless. Wommack asserts that the parties have a legitimate disagreement over the interpretation of election laws and that sanctions are not meant for disputes over legal interpretation. Wommack requests that the court deny Skipper's motion for sanctions.

    Original Description:

    Response filed with the Morris County District Court in response to motion for sanctions.

    Original Title

    Response in Opposition to Sanctions in Election Contest in Morris County Texas District Court

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is Contestant Cody Wommack's response to a motion for sanctions filed by Contestee Marie Skipper in an election contest case. Wommack argues that Skipper's motion is inadequate and provides no evidence of bad faith, harassment, or that Wommack's pleadings are groundless. Wommack asserts that the parties have a legitimate disagreement over the interpretation of election laws and that sanctions are not meant for disputes over legal interpretation. Wommack requests that the court deny Skipper's motion for sanctions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    269 views5 pages

    Response in Opposition To Sanctions in Election Contest in Morris County Texas District Court

    Uploaded by

    Cody Wommack
    This document is Contestant Cody Wommack's response to a motion for sanctions filed by Contestee Marie Skipper in an election contest case. Wommack argues that Skipper's motion is inadequate and provides no evidence of bad faith, harassment, or that Wommack's pleadings are groundless. Wommack asserts that the parties have a legitimate disagreement over the interpretation of election laws and that sanctions are not meant for disputes over legal interpretation. Wommack requests that the court deny Skipper's motion for sanctions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    CAUSE NO.

    25,959

    CODY WOMMACK,

    Contestant,
    v.
    MIKE ALCORN,
    MARIE SKIPPER
    Contestees.

    Filed 1/11/2017 5:19:03 PM


    Gwen Ashworth
    District Clerk
    Morris County, Texas
    By: Londa Clark
    Deputy

    IN THE DISTRICT COURT

    OF MORRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

    176th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

    CONTESTANTS RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS


    TO THE HONORABLE DISTRICT JUDGE ALFONSO CHARLES

    NOW COMES Contestant CODY WOMMACK, represented pro se, and files this response to
    Contestees Marie Skippers Motion for Sanctions. In support, Contestant respectfully offers the
    following for consideration by the court:
    I. BACKGROUND

    1.

    On June 30, 2016 Contestant brought an election contest suit against Contestees Marie

    Skipper and Mike Alcorn. Texas Election Code 232.003 defines who is a contestee in an election
    contest. In Contestee Marie Skippers Motion for Summary Judgment, Contestee cites Texas Election
    Code 232.003 in relevant part:
    (a) If a contested election is for nomination or election to an office for which only one person
    is to be nominated or elected, the contestee is:
    (1) the opposing candidate who is officially determined to be nominated or elected, or in
    the case of a tie for the most votes, each of the opposing tied candidates
    However, Contestee omitted the proceeding relevant part:


    (b) If a contested election is for election to an office for which more than one person is to be
    elected from the same set of candidates, any one or more of the candidates who are officially
    determined to be elected or to be tied with another candidate for election may be a contestee.
    The court may require the joinder of any of the candidates who are not named as
    contestees.
    II. MOTION IS INADEQUATE

    2.

    Contestees motion simply cites part of Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to

    claim that Contestants Election Contest is groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and
    brought for the purpose of harassment. Contestee does not even specify whether she is claiming that
    Contestants motion is in bad faith or whether it is for the purpose of harassment.
    III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

    3.

    Contestee and Contestant clearly disagree over the interpretation of substantive law in this

    case, namely Texas Election Code 232.003, Texas Education Code 11.055, and Texas Education
    Code 11.057 (a), (b). But the purpose of the sanctions mechanism is not for secondary litigation
    over interpretation. Though pleadings carry the presumption of good faith, Contestee has provided
    no evidence of bad faith, bad motives, or harassment. Beyond mere evidence, bad faith must be proven.
    Alejandro v. Robstown Indep. Sch. Dist., 131 S.W.3d 663, 670 (Tex. App.Corpus Christi 2004, no
    pet.) Rule 13 sanctions are intended to deal with those egregious situations where the worst of the
    bar uses our honored system for ill motive without regard to reason and the guiding principles of the
    law. Dyson Descendant Corp. v. Sonat Exploration Co., 861 S.W.2d 942, 951 (Tex. App.Houston
    [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ). Because of the inadequacy of Contestees motion, the most likely
    explanation for said motion is an attempt at intimidation which is forbidden in law. See Dyson
    Descendant Corp. v. Sonat Exploration Co., 861 S.W.2d at 951.


    4.

    Bad faith is not interpreted as bad judgment, negligence, or incompetency but instead refers

    to conscious wrongdoing for dishonest, discriminatory, or malicious purpose. See Parker v. Walton,
    233 S.W.3d 535, 537 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see also Olibas v. Gomez,
    242 S.W.3d 527, 534 (Tex. App.El Paso 2007, pet. denied); Marlin v. Robertson, 307 S.W.3d 418,
    435 (Tex. App.San Antonio 2009, no pet.). The court must presume Contestants good faith, Low
    v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex. 2007); and the movant must go beyond incompetent evidence
    or speculation Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d at 97. Contestee has provided nothing
    more than speculation.
    5.

    While the Court can only guess at whether Contestee is claiming that Contestants pleadings

    are in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment, Contestee would also have to prove that a Contestant
    pleading was groundless for Rule 13 sanctions to be appropriate. Groundless has been ruled by the
    Courts to mean that a pleading carries absolutely no basis in law or fact and that good faith arguments
    could not be made for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Alpert v. Crain, Caton
    & James, P.C., 178 S.W.3d 398, 411 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied). Even if
    this court agrees with Contestees on the legal points of the case, there would be no grounds for
    imposition of sanctions under Rule 13. Falk & Mayfield L.L.P. v. Molzan, 974 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Tex.
    App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied)
    IV. AMOUNT OF SANCTIONS

    6.

    In addition, Contestee requests sanctions in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND AND

    NO/100 DOLLARS ($5,000.00). She states that $4,098.58 in legal fees and expenses have been
    incurred on behalf of Contestee Marie Skipper. Notably, Contestee does not state to whom the
    expenses were incurred. In Contestants filed Petitioners Motion to Enjoin V. Jay Youngblood from


    Representing or Advising Contestees, he stated that he held on knowledge and belief that the school
    attorney V. Jay Youngblood was representing Contestee Marie Skipper pro bono. Marie Skippers
    spouse Joe Skipper stated publicly, sometime before September 14, 2016, that Contestee was being
    represented by the school attorney pro bono. See Exhibit A.
    V. CONCLUSION

    For the reasons stated above, Contestant respectfully requests that this Court deny
    Contestees motion.

    Respectfully submitted,
    ___/s/Cody Wommack__________
    Cody Wommack, pro se
    220 Haley
    Lone Star, TX 75668
    979-229-5805
    [email protected]

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I certify that a true and correct copy of the above was served on the following through efiling, e-serving, and electronic on January 11, 2017.

    Jay Youngblood
    State Bar of Texas No. 22220200
    [email protected]
    POWELL & LEON, L.L.P
    1001 ESE Loop 323, Suite 450
    Tyler, Texas 75701


    ___/s/Cody Wommack_________
    Cody Wommack

    You might also like