Download d hardeman experience

Author: b | 2025-04-23

Manrie Hardeman, Mariee D Hardeeman, Marie Deborah Hardeman, Marie D Hardemann, Marie D Hardeman, Mane Hardeman View Phone 11 Visits

Experience with Hardeman Apiaries, GA

Annotate this Case Download PDF TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-08-00324-CV Sierra Associate Group, Inc. d/b/a New Austin Homes, Appellant v. Bryan Hardeman; Hardeman Family Joint Venture, Ltd.; Richard A. Smith; Sandion G.P.; and Tosca Gruber, Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-GN-06-003059, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal arises from a dispute involving the sale of waterfront property on Lake Travis in Austin, Texas. Appellant Sierra Associate Group, Inc. d/b/a New Austin Homes ( Sierra ) sued the seller, appellees Bryan Hardeman and Hardeman Family Joint Venture, Ltd., and the seller s real estate agent and broker, appellees Richard A. Smith, Sandion G.P., and Tosca Gruber, alleging common law and statutory fraud, violation of the deceptive trade practices act ( DTPA ), and negligent misrepresentation based on the description of the property as listed by the seller and the failure to disclose restrictive covenants prohibiting the construction of a boat dock on adjacent land owned by a third party. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees on all claims and awarded attorney s fees to the appellees. Sierra challenges the trial court s judgment, the award of attorney s fees, and certain evidentiary rulings on appeal. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court s judgment. BACKGROUND The transaction Bryan Hardeman, acting as general partner for Hardeman Family Joint Venture, Ltd. (the Partnership ), signed a listing agreement with real estate Travis Central Appraisal District ( TCAD ) map attached to the contract showed the Property s boundaries and identified the Sikes Trust as the owner of the land adjoining the Property s northeast boundary. The contract gave the buyer the right to inspect and investigate the Property to determine whether it was suitable for the buyer s intentions. Paragraph 6.D. of the contract provided: OBJECTIONS: Buyer may object in writing to defects, exceptions, or encumbrances to title: disclosed on the survey other than items 6A(1) through (7) above; disclosed in the (Title) Commitment other than items 6A(1) through (8) above . . . Buyer must object not later than (i) the Closing Date or (ii) __________ days after Buyer receives the Commitment, Exception Documents, and the survey, whichever is earlier. Buyer s failure to object within the time allowed will constitute a waiver of Buyer s right to object . . . . 4 Paragraph 7.D. of the contract also provided that Sierra agreed to accept the Property in its present condition: ACCEPTANCE OF PROPERTY CONDITION: Buyer accepts the Property in its present condition; provided Seller, at Seller s expense, shall complete the following specific repairs and treatments: [none specified]. Sierra did not specify any repairs or treatments to be made by Hardeman or the Partnership. In addition to the contract, Hardeman completed the required seller s disclosure notice, which encouraged the buyer to HAVE AN INSPECTOR OF YOUR CHOICE INSPECT THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO CLOSING. Like the contract, the

Freed-Hardeman Experience - Stahuj.cz

Agent Tosca Gruber for the sale of real property located at 16308 E. Lakeshore Drive, Austin, Texas (the Property ). The Property is located in the Hudson Bend Colony Subdivision and can only be used for residential purposes. The northeast boundary of the Property runs along the 670N contour line of Lake Travis.1 Lake Travis is a flood control lake with widely varying surface levels. The shoreline of Lake Travis moves as the surface level of the lake changes. When Lake Travis approaches full capacity at 681N, its waters cover the Property s northeast boundary and a portion of the Property above the 670N contour line. However, from the time Hardeman listed the Property for sale on April 13, 2006, until the closing of the sale from Hardeman to Sierra on July 12, 2006, the water level in Lake Travis was below the 670N contour line. Thus, the shoreline of Lake Travis did not reach the Property s northeast boundary. The adjoining land below the 670N contour line on the other side of the Property s northeast boundary is owned by the Sikes Trust, an entity unrelated to Hardeman or the Partnership. This adjoining land is generally known as McIntosh Cove. For an annual fee, the Sikes Trust allows 1 The title commitment reflects that the Lower Colorado River Authority was granted a perpetual easement for the right to overflow, inundate, and submerge all lands lying below the 670N contour line as described in the instrument recorded in volume 584,. Manrie Hardeman, Mariee D Hardeeman, Marie Deborah Hardeman, Marie D Hardemann, Marie D Hardeman, Mane Hardeman View Phone 11 Visits

CHERI D HARDEMAN - NPIdb.org

Hardeman and the Partnership also moved for summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i). 7 Smith, Sandion G.P., and Gruber asserted this ground in the first supplement to their motion for summary judgment. 8 attorney s fees included in the motion for summary judgment filed by Smith, Sandion G.P., and Gruber. After a bench trial on the counterclaim for attorney s fees and costs filed by Hardeman and the Partnership, the trial court rendered final judgment that Sierra take nothing on its claims. In its final judgment, the trial court awarded attorney s fees to Smith, Sandion G.P., and Gruber in the amount of $20,000. The trial court awarded attorney s fees and costs to Hardeman and the Partnership in the respective amounts of $79,650 and $6,970.76.8 Sierra filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled by operation of law. Sierra then filed a timely appeal to this Court. DISCUSSION In four issues, Sierra challenges the trial court s grant of summary judgment in favor of the appellees. Sierra asserts that material fact issues exist that preclude summary judgment and that its claims against the appellees are not barred by its independent investigation or the as is provision in the contract. Sierra also contends that the trial court erred in awarding attorney s fees to the appellees and that the trial court erred in sustaining the appellees evidentiary objections and striking portions of Sierra s summary judgment evidence. The appellees respond that there was no error in Judgment derived from an independent investigation or the advice of his or her own agents. Trentman v. Whiteside, 163 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Tex. Civ. App. Austin 1942), aff d, 170 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. 1943); Dillard v. Clutter, 145 S.W.2d 632, 634 (Tex. Civ. App. Amarillo 1940, writ ref d); Donoho v. Hunter, 287 S.W.47, 49-50 (Tex. Comm n App. 1926, judgm t adopted). To the extent Sierra contends that Polston relied on the affirmative characterization of the Property as waterfront property by the appellees, we reject that argument. Under Texas law, Sierra was charged with knowledge of the facts that a reasonable investigation would have revealed. 13 See Thigpen v. Locke, 363 S.W.2d 247, 251 (Tex. 1962). A party in an arm s length transaction must exercise ordinary care for the protection of his own interests, and any failure to do so will not be excused by mere confidence in the honesty and integrity of the other party. Id. The record shows that Sierra was aware that the Sikes Trust, not Hardeman or the Partnership, owned the adjoining land below the 670N contour line. The record also shows that the shoreline of Lake Travis was below the 670N contour line from the time the Property was listed for sale until closing. The survey reviewed by Polston prior to closing showed that the shoreline of Lake Travis was below the 670N contour line and did not reach the Property s northeast boundary. Thus, Polston knew that if he wanted to build

D Hardeman by A Life - Flipsnack

Ang Bank 1905 Mobile Banking ay isang maginhawa at ligtas na paraan upang ma-access ang iyong mga account sa The Bank of Fayette County, The Bank of Hardeman County, The Bank of McNairy County, The Bank of Collierville, The Bank of Mason, The Bank of Arlington, at Ang Bangko ng Chester County.SEGURIDADPriyoridad ang seguridad - tulad ng sa Online Banking, mag-sign in gamit ang iyong mga secure na kredensyal. Para sa kaligtasan at pagkapribado ng impormasyon ng iyong account, isinasama namin ang maraming tampok sa seguridad:• Dapat mong patotohanan ang bawat pakikipag-ugnayan sa Mobile Banking.• Walang personal o pinansyal na impormasyon ang nakaimbak sa iyong telepono.MGA TAMPOK• Suriin ang iyong mga balanse sa account.• Suriin ang kamakailang aktibidad ng account.• Maglipat ng pera sa pagitan ng mga karapat-dapat na account.• Mga tseke sa deposito.• Magbayad ng mga bayarin.• Baguhin at kanselahin ang mga nakabinbing pagbabayad.• Maghanap ng mga lokasyon ng ATM at sangay.SUPORTAMay mga katanungan o kailangan ng tulong? Makipag-ugnayan sa The Bank 1905 sa 901-854-2265 o bisitahin ang aming website sa www.thebank1905.com.TUNGKOL SA BANGKOAng Bank 1905 ay isang bangko ng komunidad sa Tennessee na may mga sangay na Fayette, Hardeman, McNairy, Tipton, Shelby, at Chester Counties. Mayroon kaming mahabang kasaysayan mula pa noong 1905 ng paglilingkod sa mga customer, empleyado, komunidad, at stockholder ng Bangko.Miyembro ng FDIC. Equal Housing Lender.

Experience with Hardeman Apiaries, GA - Beesource

Kiersten Hardeman had just returned home from a tour of Texas A&M, and had some news to share. She sat down in the living room with her father while he was watching TV and sent him a simple text message. D'Andre “Tiki” Hardeman initially thought it was a tad odd that his daughter would send him a text message while sitting nearby. Kiersten could have easily delivered the breaking news verbally, but she wanted to be able to focus on his reaction as he read the message. “Dad,” Kiersten wrote, “I will further my education at Texas A&M.” The man who once punished Big 12 linebackers at Kyle Field with ferocity melted like a soft teddy bear. “I wanted to see his reaction,” Kiersten said. “It was very nice. It was good to make him proud and continue the legacy.” For the record, Tiki couldn't help but cry after reading that text. “It was a dream of mine for all my kids to go to A&M,” he said. “I had tears in my eyes after reading that text. I'm tearing up just thinking about it.” It's safe to say Kiersten was destined to be an Aggie. She was born during her father's sophomore year at A&M. You could even say that Tiki took his daughter on the field with him during games. In fact, Kiersten tweeted a photo in September that her father had sent her from his playing days with the caption, “I always knew you were going to. Manrie Hardeman, Mariee D Hardeeman, Marie Deborah Hardeman, Marie D Hardemann, Marie D Hardeman, Mane Hardeman View Phone 11 Visits

‎Freed-Hardeman Experience on the App Store

June 7, 2007, which added the claim of negligent misrepresentation. 7 Property. Sierra also sought exemplary damages under the DTPA and the recovery of its attorney s fees and costs. The appellees filed separate motions for summary judgment. Among other grounds, Hardeman and the Partnership moved for summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c) on the ground that the summary judgment evidence conclusively negated essential elements of Sierra s claims, including causation and reliance, because Sierra purchased the Property as is. 6 Smith, Sandion G.P., and Gruber also moved for summary judgment on the ground that the summary judgment evidence conclusively negated the element of reliance.7 With respect to Sierra s DTPA claim, all of the appellees moved for summary judgment on the ground that Sierra s claim was barred under section 17.49(g) of the DTPA because Sierra paid more than $500,000 and the Property was not a residence within the meaning of the statute. In addition to their motions for summary judgment, the appellees also filed counterclaims against Sierra for the recovery of attorney s fees and expenses pursuant to paragraph 17 of the contract, which states that [t]he prevailing party in any legal proceeding related to this contract is entitled to recover reasonable attorney s fees and all costs of such proceeding incurred by the prevailing party. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hardeman and the Partnership and Smith, Sandion G.P., and Gruber. The trial court also granted the counterclaim for reasonable 6