Just six days after telling parties in a separate appeal that the court could not locate a handful of cases cited by the appellant, the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas on Wednesday told a man representing himself in a child custody case that it couldn’t locate eight cases he cited.
“After reviewing the relator’s brief, we note that it cites the following cases, none of which could be located by this Court:
- Awoniyi v. McAdams, 6 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999 no pet.)
- Doe v. Louisiana, 2 F.4th 436 (5th Cir. 2021)
- In re A.M., 664 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2022)
- In re Bahn, No. 05-21-00046-CV, 2021 WL 2000102 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
- In re Marriage of Ikonomopoulos, 511 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied)
- In re Marriage of Palacios, No. 10-08-00137-CV, 2008 WL 4647887 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 15, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
- In re S.A.S., No. 05-16-00049-CV, 2016 WL 1298963, at *2 (Tex. App.— Dallas Apr. 4, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
- In re S.H., 548 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet.)
We order relator to file with this Court copies of the cases listed above within ten days of the date of this order.”
The order means Tariq Farooq has until April 26 to turn over copies of the cases or explain the issue to the court.
And the 10-day clock is already running for lawyer Heidi Rochon Hafer, who is representing herself and her sister, Lauren Rochon-Eidsvig, in an appeal in a fraudulent transfer case. The sisters, according to court documents, were transferred jewelry valued at more than $1 million by their parents, former Mary Kay Cosmetics Chairman John Rochon Sr. and Donna Rochon.
The parents owe JGB Collateral the balance of a $6.7 million judgment, according to court documents, and JGB filed suit to recover the valuables, alleging the transfer violated the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The sisters have argued they’re entitled to keep the jewelry, which was a gift.
The Dallas Court of Appeals has given the sisters until April 20 to file copies of the following cases they cited but that the court and opposing counsel have been unable to locate:
- Macy’s Texas, Inc. v. D.A. Adams & Co., 584 S.W.2d 716 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e);
- Stephens v. Beard, 158 Tex. 229, 309 S.W.2d 189 (1958);
- Gaston v. Monroe, 89 Tex. 539, 35 S.W. 658 (1896);
- Estate of Malpass v. Malpass, 917 S.W.2d 773 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no writ).
JGB Collateral is represented by Jeffrey S. Lowenstein, Gwen I. Walraven and David G. Webster of Bell Nunnally & Martin. Those attorneys told the court it should reject the sisters’ arguments because “they rely on cases that do not exist.”
The cases are In re Tariq Farooq, case number 05-25-00431-CV and Lauren Rochon-Eidsvig and Heidi Rochon Hafer v. JGB Collateral, case number 05-24-00123-CV.