I. SDTX No. 4:12-cv-592 Candace Louise Curtis vs Amy Brunsting, Anita Brunsting and Does 1-100, a breach of fiduciary action seeking accounting and disclosures filed 2/27/2012. Filed Pro se!
II. 5th Circuit ROA.12-20164 – Curtis v Brunsting 704 F.3d 406 (pro se appeal)
III. Harris County District Court 164 Cause No. 2013-05455, a malpractice action against the estate planning attorneys filed by Carl Brunsting as “independent executor” of his Parents estate, filed January 29, 2013. Carl resigned the office of “independent executor” February 19, 2015 and there has been no plaintiff in this case since.
IV. Harris County Probate Court No. 4 Cause No. 412249-401, a civil tort action exclusively related to the Brunsting trust filed by Carl Brunsting on April 9, 2013, the same day as the injunction hearing in SDTX No. 4:12-cv-592.
V. Harris County Probate Court No. 4 Cause No. 412249-402 – the federal case was remanded to Harris County Probate Court No. 4 May 14, 2014.
a. The “remand order” was accepted in Probate Court No. 4 as a “transfer order” on May 22, 2014; converted into “Estate of Nelva Brunsting No. 412249-402” and then Dissolved into Estate of Nelva Brunsting No. 412249-401, which is the case brought by Carl Brunsting both individually and as “independent” executor on April 9, 2015.
VI. Curtis et al., vs. Kunz-Freed et al., SDTX No. 4:16-cv-1969, an honest services fraud case brought under the racketeer influenced corrupt organization statutes filed July 5, 2016: dismissed for failure to state a claim.
VII. 5th Circuit ROA.17-20360 affirmed for lack of a sufficient statement of supporting facts June 28, 2018.
VIII. Registration of Foreign Judgment, Submission ID: 43704956, filed with Harris District Clerk on June 12, 2020, domesticating the federal preliminary injunction. The Foreign Judgment was not challenged by the respondents within 30 days as required and thus, the Foreign Judgment became a final judgement on July 12, 2020.
IX. 412249-403 – This is case #3 supra, Harris County District Court 164 Cause No. 2013-05455 ordered transferred to Harris County Probate Court No. 4 on April 4, 2019, without a pending probate administration to be ancillary to and, where it remains without a plaintiff as of Carl Brunstings’ February 17, 2015 resignation. (See Narvaez v Powell)
Haight v. Koley Jessen PC, No. 10-18-00057-CV, at *4-5 (Tex. App. June 12, 2019) (“In In re Hannah, the court held that a cause of action brought in the district court was not a "matter related to a probate proceeding" within the scope of Section 31.002 of the Estates Code. In re Hannah, 431 S.W.3d at 809. The court focused on the nature of the damages sought, and held that because the suit sought damages which would, if awarded, be satisfied from the defendant's individual assets rather than from any property of the estate, the claims were not related to a probate proceeding. In re Hannah, 431 S.W.3d at 809-811. In Narvaez, the court agreed with the court in Hannah that the nature of the claims and the relief sought must be examined when determining whether the probate court has jurisdiction of a non-probate claim. Narvaez v. Powell, 564 S.W.3d 49, 56 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet). In Narvaez, a group of heirs filed suit in district court against attorneys alleging breach of fiduciary duties and legal malpractice. Narvaez v. Powell, 564 S.W.3d at 52. The court in Narvaez found that a legal malpractice claim cannot be characterized as a probate proceeding within the meaning of Section 31.001 or related to a probate proceeding as that term is defined by Section 31.002 of the Estates Code. Narvaez v. Powell, 564 S.W.3d at 57.”)
X. 412249-404 – A statutory Bill of Review constituting a direct attack on the Probate Courts Order denying Candace Curtis Plea to the Jurisdiction .
XI. 412249-405 – This case was created March 11, 2022 by an order severing Carl Brunsting from the 412249-401 lawsuit Carl Brunsting filed in the probate court April 9, 2013, [No. 412249-401], leaving Candace Curtis as the sole defendant with alleged Co-Trustee Defendants Amy Brunsting and Anita Brunsting and their attorneys Stephen Mendel and Neal Spielman as the only remaining Plaintiff’s in the lawsuit Carl Brunsting filed the same day Candace Curtis was attending the preliminary injunction hearing in the Southern District of Texas.
XII. Texas First District Court of Appeal No. 01-22-00378-CV (Appeal Withdrawn) The clerk will not compile a record from more than one case number. This would explain why the attorneys create a mess with multiple case file numbers when there is only one family and one family trust at issue. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 requires that a Notice of Appeal be filed within 30 days of the date of entry of the order appealed. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1(a)4 extends that period to 90 days when certain criteria have been met. The only exception to this constraint are judgments void for want of jurisdiction and those voidable for due process defects and other substantive procedural ground.
XIII. Texas First District Court of Appeal No. 01-22-00513-cv Petition for Writ of Mandamus (denied with no explanation).
A December 5, 2021 Rule 11 Agreement; March 11, 2022 order severing the claims of diversity polluting “involuntary Plaintiff” Carl Brunsting from those of “Co-Plaintiff” Candace Curtis, Carl Brunstings’ March 18, 2022 Nonsuit of Candace Curtis and a February 25, 2022 Order for Summary Judgement, changing Candace Curtis standing, uncover the veil of fraudulent joinder and provide the basis for invoking removal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b)(1).
There hasn’t even been an evidentiary hearing. Candace Curtis could never get an evidentiary hearing. Without a hearing there is no evidence and without evidence no judgment can be entered. Oh, but let us not let law get in the way when stealing money is the only issue.
XIV. SDTX No. 4:22-cv-1129 April 7, 2022 created by removal of the alleged
Co-Trustees’ counterclaims to the Southern District of Texas.
The Brunsting trust controversy is not a probate matter, a probate case or a probate proceeding and there is no estate administration for all of these fraudulently manufactured cases to have been filed ancillary too.
Elmer Brunsting [412248] and Nelva Brunsting [412249] had pour-over-wills and a living trust. Elmer’s estate inventory doesn’t contain any tangible property other than ½ of a 1970’s used car and Nelva’s estate inventory also contains ½ of a used car. Nothing else in either inventory provides a basis for probate jurisdiction.
XV.
Harris County’s First District Court of Appeal
for the State of Texas Cause No. 01-23-00362-CV.
b.
Reporters
Record
i. Transcript 1
Carole Emergency Motion
ii. Transcript 2
Motion to Sever and Status Conference
iii. Transcript 3
Pretrial Conference Sanctions
c.
Appellants
Opening Brief on Appeal (Appendix
of Exhibits)
d.
Appellees
Unopposed Request for Extension of Time to File Answer
e.
Appellees
opposed 2nd Request for Extension of Time to File Answer