Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial
Court No. 2011-CI-02839 Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe,
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice.
12, 2017, Appellant Nancy Alanis moved this court to
judicially notice certain facts, see Tex. R. Evid.
201(b), which she divides into three categories.
18, 2017, Appellee Barclays Capital Real Estate Inc. filed a
response which Appellees Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, as Trustee; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC; and
Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C. adopt in whole.
See Tex. R. Evid. 201(e). Appellees oppose
court may judicially notice a fact that is not
subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be
accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy
cannot reasonably be questioned." Tex. R. Evid. 201(b)
(emphasis added); accord Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v.
Pub. Util. Comm'n of Tex., 878 S.W.2d 598, 600 (Tex.
1994) (per curiam) ("To be the proper subject of
judicial notice, a fact must be 'capable of accurate and
ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy
cannot reasonably be questioned.'"); Camp
Mystic, Inc. v. Eastland, 399 S.W.3d 266, 278 (Tex.
App.-San Antonio 2012, no pet.) ("While a court may take
judicial notice of the existence of the testimony in [a
prior] trial, . . . a court may not take judicial notice of
the truth of the factual content of that testimony because
its accuracy can reasonably be questioned." (alterations
in original) (quoting In re C.L., 304 S.W.3d 512,
515 (Tex. App.- Waco 2009, no pet.)); see also In re
K.F., 402 S.W.3d 497, 505 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist]
2013, pet. denied) (same); Jackson v. State, 139
S.W.3d 7, 21 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref d)
("[W]hile a court may judicially notice the existence of
the affidavit in its file, the court may not take judicial
notice of the truth of the factual contents contained in such
an affidavit because those facts are not the kinds of facts
that a court may judicially notice.").
address each of Appellant's three requests.
Appellant asks this court to judicially notice "record
entries obtained from the public website of County Clerk
& District Clerk Court Records Search of Gerard C
Rickhoff and Donna Kay McKinney in Cause No.
2011-CI-02839" including the "timely notice(s) of
appeal of trial orders before this court." Appellant
then provides a summary of twenty-one orders she asserts are
relevant and an Exhibit A, "Relevant Court Entries in
Cause No. 2011-CI-02839."
2 of the sixth supplemental clerk's record filed in this
appeal contains the docket entries for trial court cause
number 2011-CI-02839 and it has been certified by the Bexar
County District Clerk. To the degree that Appellant asks this
court to judicially notice docket entries that are already in
the appellate record, her request is MOOT.
other hand, Appellant's Exhibit A is an unofficial,
unverified, incomplete list of docket entries Appellant
asserts is derived from the entries in cause number
2011-CI-02839. Appellant's Exhibit A is not a document
"whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."
Contra MCI Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Hinton, 329
S.W.3d 475, 484 n.7 (Tex. 2010). To the degree that Appellant
asks this court to judicially notice Exhibit A, that request
is DENIED. See id.
Appellant asks this court to judicially notice an interim
cease and desist order issued by the Texas Department of
Savings and Mortgage Lending on April 20, 2017, to Ocwen
Financial Corporation. The order's contents include
findings pertaining to facts that are in dispute in this
appeal, and such findings are subject to reasonable
dispute and are not appropriate to judicially notice.
See Tex. R. Evid. 201(b); Camp Mystic, 399
S.W.3d at 278. Appellant's motion for this court to
judicially notice the truth of the findings in the cease and
desist order is DENIED.
Appellant asks this court to judicially notice a
"timeline" that she prepared of alleged ex parte
communications between opposing counsel and various trial
court judges that have ruled on matters in the underlying
cases. Appellant's timeline is not a document "whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Contra
MCI Sales & Serv., 329 S.W.3d at 485.