Donald F. Duck v. Dale Chipmunk Pleading

NO. 2024-000637-CV

DONALD F. DUCK § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

§

Plaintiff, §

§

vs. § OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

§

DALE CHIPMUNK §

§

Defendant § 999th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

DEFENDANT DALE CHIPMUNK’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Defendant, Dale Chipmunk (“defendant”), in answer to Plaintiff’s Original Petition, as well as any other amended and supplemental petitions or claims previously or later filed by anyone, files this, Original Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Petition, and Request for Disclosure, and in support thereof, would respectfully show the court following:

1. PARTIES

Plaintiff is DONALD FAUNTLEROY DUCK, who is a resident of Harris County, Texas.

Defendant DALE CHIPMUNK is a resident of Montgomery County and may be served at the following address: 6350 Daisy Drive, Conroe, Texas 77316.

2. GENERAL DENIAL

Defendant, pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedures Rule 92, denies each and every, all and singular, factual allegation and conclusion of law, or any combination thereof, contained in Plaintiff’s first amended petition, along with any amendments or supplements thereto that have been filed or may be filed in the future, along with any petitions or claims asserted by any party at any time, and demands strict proof thereof.

Defendant further specifically denies that the Plaintiff or anyone else is entitled to recover any amount or is entitled to any relief whatsoever from the defendant. 

3. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

Defendant, pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 190.4, asserts this case involves multiple parties and claims. Therefore, the defendant requests the court to issue a tailored customized discovery control plan, a Level 3 Discovery, to fit this case’s needs.

4. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Defendant, pursuant to Chapter 94 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedures, asserts the affirmative defense of adverse possession. defendant occupied the pecan trees referenced in Plaintiff’s petition in a manner that was to the extent that the pecan trees referenced in Plaintiff’s Petition was located on Plaintiff’s legal property, defendant has occupied the property in a manner that was: 1) without permission, 2) exclusive to the defendant, 3) Open and notorious, and 4) for a required statutory period of ten (10) years. As a result, the defendant gained possession rights to the orchard property through adverse possession, therefore, could not commit trespassing or converted property from the property. 

5. SPECIAL EXCEPTION - REQUEST FOR REPLEADING

Defendant, pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 91, objects to Plaintiff’s original petition on the grounds that it failed to provide a sufficient legal description of the orchard property. The defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s petition does not include specific boundary descriptions of the property. Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s original petition is vague, ambiguous, and fails to provide a proper factual detail which prohibits the defendant from delivering an adequate response. Without a proper legal description of the property, the plaintiff is unable to determine whether the defendant actually trespassed onto the Orchard property or converted any of the plaintiff’s pecans to their property. Defendant, pursuant to Rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendant requests the court to order the Plaintiff to re-plead with more specificity of the proper description of the Orchard property’s legal boundaries.

6. COUNTERCLAIMS AND OTHER REMEDIES

Defendant, pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 97, asserts a counterclaim for conversion against Plaintiff, Donald F. Duck, and alleges the following: 1) Defendant routinely occupied trees within the orchard property, 2) left personal property including furniture, food, and personal belongings in tree hollows within the Orchard Property, and 3) Plaintiff intentionally destroyed defendant’s personal property, on multiple occasions. The defendant seeks actual damages to replace that destroyed personal property.

7. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, Dale Chipmunk, prays that the Plaintiff’s suit be dismissed for lack of proper level of discovery, or in the alternative that Plaintiff take nothing by its suit and for any such other and further relief, general and specific, at law and in equity to which Dale Chipmunk may show itself to be entitled. 

Restfully submitted,

CHRIS BROGDON

Brogdon and Brogdon Attorney