From: Subject: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 16:15:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7D77B.D4DAB240" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7D77B.D4DAB240 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=83674 Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
Send this document to a=20 colleague    Close=20 This Window


Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 2,=20 2007.

 

 

In The

 

Fourteenth=20 Court of Appeals

____________

 

NO. 14-05-01179-CV

____________

 

EDUARDO P.=20 LENTINO, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSIGNEE OF JORGE A. LENTINO, = M.D., AND=20 MARTA A. LENTINO, = Appellants

 

V.

 

FROST=20 NATIONAL BANK F/K/A CULLEN CENTER BANK AND = TRUST, = Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the = 281st District Court

Harris County, = Texas

Trial Court Cause = No. 2004-08487

 

 

M E M O R=20 A N D U M   O P I N I O N

In this=20 equitable bill of review proceeding, pro se appellants, Eduardo P. = Lentino, M.D., individually and as assignee of Jorge A. Lentino, = M.D., and=20 Marta A. Lentino (collectively referred to as appellants) appeal = the trial=20 court=3Ds denial=20 of their motion for summary judgment and the trial = court=3Ds granting=20 of appellee, Frost National Bank f/k/a Cullen Center Bank and=20 Trust=3Ds, motion=20 for summary judgment.  We affirm.

Factual=20 and Procedural Background

This is an=20 equitable bill of review proceeding that has its factual origins = dating=20 back to 1982.  The parties are before this court for the = third time;=20 accordingly, we limit our factual background only to those facts = essential=20 to our decision in this matter.[1]

On=20 February 29, 2000, after appellants intentionally chose not to = participate=20 in the trial proceedings, the trial court entered a post-answer = default=20 judgment against appellants.  After the trial court did not = rule on a=20 flurry of post-judgment motions filed by appellants, they appealed = the=20 February 29, 2000 judgment to this court, which we affirmed in=20 Lentino, et al.=20 v. Cullen Center Bank and Trust n/k/a Frost National = Bank, 2002 WL 220421 = (Tex.=20 App.CHouston [14th Dist.] = Feb. 14,=20 2002, pet. denied) (not=20 designated for publication).

Nearly four years = after the=20 trial court entered its judgment, on February 20, 2004, appellants = filed=20 their petition for equitable bill of review seeking to set aside = the=20 original post-answer default judgment entered in favor of appellee = in=20 February 2000.  Both sides ultimately moved for summary=20 judgment.  In its motion for summary judgment, appellee = argued=20 appellants=3D bill of review was = barred=20 because a bill of review cannot be used as an additional remedy = after a=20 party has made a timely but unsuccessful appeal.  Appellee = also=20 argued it was entitled to summary judgment as appellants could not = satisfy=20 any of the elements necessary to maintain a bill of review. =20 Appellants also filed a motion for summary judgment.  = Appellants=20 sought to set aside the February 2000 judgment as well as the = entry of a=20 judgment in their favor on various causes of action they had = asserted=20 against appellee.=20

The trial=20 court conducted a hearing on August 15, 2005.  Finding the = appellants=20 had failed to present prima facie proof of a meritorious defense = as a=20 matter of law, the trial court granted appellee=3Ds motion=20 for summary judgment and denied appellants=3D = motion.  This appeal followed.

Discussion

In eight=20 issues on appeal, appellants challenge the trial court=3Ds granting=20 of appellee=3Ds motion=20 for  summary judgment and the denial of their own = motion.

A.     =20 Standard of Review

The movant=20 for summary judgment has the burden to show there is no genuine = issue of=20 material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. = Nixon=20 v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985). In=20 determining whether there is a genuine fact issue precluding = summary=20 judgment, evidence favorable to the non-movant is taken as true = and the=20 reviewing court makes all reasonable inferences and resolves all = doubts in=20 his favor. Id. at 548B49. We=20 review a trial court=3Ds summary=20 judgment de novo. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 = S.W.3d 656,=20 661 (Tex. 2005). When both parties move for summary judgment, each = party=20 bears the burden of establishing that it is entitled to judgment = as a=20 matter of law. Guynes v. Galveston County, 861 S.W.2d 861, = 862=20 (Tex. 1993). When, as here, both sides moved for summary judgment = and the=20 trial court grants one motion and denies the other, the court = reviews the=20 competent summary judgment evidence presented by both sides and = determines=20 all questions presented and renders the judgment that the trial = court=20 should have rendered. Village of Pheasant Run v. Kastor, 47 = S.W.3d=20 747, 750 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied).  In an appeal from a summary = judgment, issues an appellate court may review are those the = movant=20 actually presented to the trial court.  Cincinnati Life = Insurance=20 Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1996).  An = appellate=20 court is not precluded from affirming the judgment on other = grounds the=20 parties properly raised before the trial court, when the trial = court=20 grants summary judgment specifically on fewer than all grounds=20 asserted.  Id.

B.     =20 Bill of Review

A bill of=20 review is an equitable proceeding by a party to a former action = who seeks=20 to set aside a judgment that is no longer appealable or subject to = a=20 motion for new trial.  Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d = 404, 406=20 (Tex. 1979).  A bill of review complainant must prove three = elements:=20 (1) a meritorious claim or defense; (2) that he was prevented from = asserting by the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of his opponent = or by=20 official mistake; and (3) the absence of fault or negligence of = the=20 complainant.  Calwell v. Barnes, 975 S.W.2d 535, 537 = (Tex.=20 1998).  A bill of review may not be used as an additional = remedy=20 after one has made a timely, but unsuccessful appeal.  = Rizk v.=20 Mayard, 603 S.W.2d 773, 776 (Tex. 1980).

C.     =20 The Trial Court Correctly Granted Appellee=3Ds Motion=20 for Summary Judgment as Appellants Had Previously Appealed the = February=20 2000 Judgment

In issues=20 one through four of their appeal, appellants assert the trial = court erred=20 in granting appellee=3Ds motion=20 for summary judgment because (1) appellee did not have standing to = pursue=20 its claims against appellants; and (2) the appellants raised = genuine=20 issues of material fact regarding their meritorious defenses to=20 appellee=3Ds causes=20 of action.  Appellants=3D = arguments=20 are without merit. A bill of review may not be used as an = additional=20 remedy after one has made a timely, but unsuccessful appeal.  = Id.  The grounds upon which a bill of review can be = obtained=20 are narrow because the procedure conflicts with the fundamental = policy=20 that judgments must become final at some point.  = Transworld Fin.=20 Serv. Corp. v. Briscoe, 722 S.W.2d 407, 407 (Tex. 1987).  = Here,=20 appellants have already tried and unsuccessfully appealed the = claims and=20 defenses underlying their bill of review.  = Appellants=3D = arguments=20 regarding the basis for their bill of review, both here and in the = trial=20 court, simply rehash the issues resolved in appellants=3D = appeal of=20 the trial court=3Ds February=20 2000 judgment.  All of appellants=3D = claims=20 and defenses either were or could have been litigated in the trial = and=20 appellate courts and thus are barred by res judicata.  = Compania=20 Financiara Libano v. Simmons, 53 S.W.3d 365, 367 (Tex. 2001);=20 Rizk, 603 S.W.2d at 776.  In addition, because = appellants=20 timely but unsuccessfully appealed the issues underlying the = February 2000=20 judgment, they cannot show they have been prevented from making a = claim or=20 defense and, accordingly, they cannot utilize a bill of = review. =20 See Nabelek v. C. O. Bradford, No. 14-04-01177-CV, 2006 WL = 915824,=20 at *2 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] Apr. 6, 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op., not designated = for=20 publication) (affirming denial of bill of review where party had = timely=20 but unsuccessfully appealed the same alleged errors underlying the = bill of=20 review and thus had not been prevented from asserting claims or=20 defenses).  We overrule appellants=3D = first,=20 second, third, and fourth issues.

D.     =20 Appellee=3Ds Motion=20 for Summary Judgment was Not Defective

In their=20 fifth issue, appellants contend the trial court erred when it = granted=20 appellee=3Ds motion=20 for summary judgment as it was defective because appellee attached = voluminous documents as exhibits to its motion for summary = judgment=20 without an index and without  referencing those exhibits in = the body=20 of the summary judgment motion.  In issue six, appellants = argue the=20 trial court erred by not entering a written order addressing their = objections and special exceptions filed in response to=20 appellee=3Ds motion=20 for summary judgment.  Appellants=3D = contentions are without merit.  While appellee did attach = voluminous=20 exhibits to its motion for summary judgment, the exhibits = contained an=20 index with a brief explanation as to the content of each = exhibit.  In=20 addition, appellee referenced the attached exhibits throughout its = motion=20 for summary judgment.  In addition, while the trial court did = not=20 issue a written order, it addressed appellants=3D = objections and special exceptions during an August 15, 2005 oral = hearing=20 on the record.  With a single exception, the trial court = overruled=20 all of appellants=3D = objections and special exceptions during the August 15, 2005=20 hearing.  The trial court withheld its ruling on a single=20 objection/special exception but, by granting appellee=3Ds motion=20 for summary judgment, the trial court implicitly overruled the = remaining=20 objection/special exception.  Clement v. City of = Plano, 26=20 S.W.3d 544, 550 n.5 (Tex. App.CDallas=20 2000, no pet.) overruled on other grounds Telthorster v. = Tennell,=20 92 S.W.3d 457, 464 (Tex. 2002); Dagley v. Haag = Eng=3Dg=20 Co., 18=20 S.W.3d 787, 795 n. 9 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).   We overrule=20 appellants=3D = fifth and=20 sixth issues.

E.     =20 The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Not Granting=20 Appellants=3D = Motion=20 for New Trial

The=20 decision whether to grant or deny a motion for new trial is within = the=20 trial court=3Ds=20 discretion.  Balias v. Balias, Inc., 748 S.W.2d 253, = 257 (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 1988, writ denied).  This court will not disturb = the=20 trial court=3Ds ruling=20 on a motion for new trial absent an abuse of discretion.  = Vickery=20 v. Tex. Carpet Co., Inc., 792 S.W.2d 759, 761 (Tex. = App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied).  In matters committed to a = trial=20 court=3Ds=20 discretion, the test for abuse of that discretion is whether the = trial=20 court acted arbitrarily or without reference to guiding legal=20 principles.  Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 839 = (Tex.=20 2004).  This standard also applies when the motion for new = trial is=20 overruled by operation of law.  Bank One v. Moody, 830 = S.W.2d=20 81, 85 (Tex. 1992).  As we have already determined that the = trial=20 court properly granted appellee=3Ds motion=20 for summary judgment and  appellants did not present new = evidence or=20 arguments in their motion for new trial, but merely repeated prior = arguments, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it = overruled,=20 by operation of law, appellants=3D = motion=20 for new trial.  We overrule appellants=3D = seventh=20 issue.

F.      =20 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Are Inappropriate in a = Summary=20 Judgment Proceeding

In their=20 final issue, appellants argue the trial court erred when it failed = to=20 enter findings of fact and conclusions of law following its ruling = on the=20 parties=3D = competing=20 motions for summary judgment.  Appellants=3D = argument=20 is without merit as findings of fact and conclusions of law have = no place=20 in a summary judgment proceeding.  Linwood v. NCNB = Texas, 885=20 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex. 1994).  If summary judgment is proper, = then=20 there are no facts to find, and the legal conclusions have already = been=20 stated in the motion and the response.  Coastal Transp. = Co. v.=20 Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 20 S.W.3d 119, 125 (Tex. = App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.]  2000, pet. denied).  A trial court should = not=20 make, and the appellate court cannot consider, such findings and=20 conclusions in connection with a summary judgment.  = Id. =20 The cases cited by appellants do not change this result as, with a = single=20 exception, they are not summary judgment cases.  See Gene = Duke=20 Builders, Inc. v. Abilene Hous. Auth., 138 S.W.3d 907, 907 = (Tex. 2004)=20 (per curiam) (trial court granted defendant=3Ds plea to=20 the jurisdiction); Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 29, 29 = (Tex. 1996)=20 (appeal from a divorce decree); Higginbotham v. General Life = and Acc.=20 Ins. Co., 796 S.W.2d 695, 695 (Tex. 1990) (appeal from the = denial of a=20 motion for new trial following no-answer default judgment);=20  Addington v. Addington, No. 14-03-00340-CV, 2004 WL = 1472127,=20 at *1 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] July 1, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for=20 publication) (appeal from award of attorney=3Ds fees=20 following the non-suiting of a declaratory judgment action); = Goodenbour=20 v. Goodenbour, 64 S.W.3d 69, 73 (Tex. App.CAustin=20 2001, pet. denied) (trial court granted defendant=3Ds special=20 appearance); Hernandez v. Texas Dept. of Ins., 923 S.W.2d = 192, 194=20 (Tex. App.CAustin=20 1996, no writ) (trial court granted defendant=3Ds plea to=20 the jurisdiction); Goggins v. Lea, 849 S.W.2d 373, 375 = (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) (appeal from a bench trial of a = forcible=20 detainer action).

The sole=20 summary judgment case cited by appellants, West Columbia=20 Nat=3Dl Bank v.=20 Griffith, 902=20 S.W.2d 201, 204B05 (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied), can be distinguished on its = facts. =20 The initial issue to be resolved in Griffith was the = appellate=20 court=3Ds=20 jurisdiction over the appeal.  Id. at 203.  In=20 Griffith, the trial court issued an interlocutory order = granting=20 Griffith=3Ds bill of=20 review.  Id.  Following that interlocutory order, = the=20 trial court ultimately granted Griffith=3Ds motion=20 for summary judgment finally disposing of the entire case. =20 Id.  In its determination of the jurisdictional issue, = the=20 appellate court held West Columbia National Bank was entitled to = request=20 that the trial court enter findings of fact and conclusions of law = as to=20 the interlocutory order granting the bill of review once the final = summary=20 judgment was granted, thus extending the deadline for the bank to = file its=20 appeal.  Id. at 205.  Crucial to the = court=3Ds decision=20 in Griffith was the fact there were two separate orders: an = interlocutory order granting the bill of review, for which = findings and=20 conclusions could be made, and the final summary judgment where = they could=20 not.  Id. at 204.  Here, there was no = interlocutory order=20 issued, only a final summary judgment.  Accordingly, the = trial court=20 did not err in refusing appellants=3D = request.  We overrule appellants=3D = eighth=20 issue.

Conclusion

Having=20 overruled all of appellants=3D = issues on=20 appeal, we affirm the trial court=3Ds November=20 28, 2005 final summary judgment denying appellants=3D = bill of=20 review.

 

 

 

 

 

/s/     =20 John S. Anderson

Justice

 

 

 

 

Judgment=20 rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed August 2, 2007.

Panel=20 consists of Justices Anderson, Fowler, and Edelman.

 

 


[1]  See our prior opinions in = Lentino, et=20 al. v. Cullen Center Bank and Trust n/k/a Frost National Bank, = 2002 WL=20 220421 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] Feb. 14, 2002, pet. = denied)=20 (not designated for publication) and Lentino et al. v. Cullen = Center=20 Bank and Trust, 919 S.W.2d 743 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ den.) = for a more=20 detailed rendition of the facts underlying this=20 = appeal.

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7D77B.D4DAB240 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/opinions/images/icoEMail.gif R0lGODlhFAAPAKIAAAAAgIAAAP///8DAwICAgAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAFAAPAAADNCi63P4wykaq vba4Mrr/ndaITxAM5JI2JrotQCwr7jjVDCnPAq7eKwEHRAwWjshkcsJsShIAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7D77B.D4DAB240 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/resource/includes/oca.css .TitleBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlueCenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TitleMaroon { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: maroon; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TitleBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .NavWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.NavWhite:hover { TEXT-DECORATION: underline } .BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } A.BreadCrumbs { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.BreadCrumbs:hover { COLOR: blue } .TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextJustify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = black; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextNormal:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow } .TextSmallBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextSmallJust { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial Narrow; TEXT-ALIGN: justify } A.TextSmall { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmallJust { COLOR: #000099; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.TextSmall:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } A.TextSmallJust:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextSmallWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: = white; FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .TextWhite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: white; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextWhite { =09 } A.TextWhite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .LinksSite { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.LinksSite { =09 } A.LinksSite:hover { FONT-WEIGHT: bold } .TextNotify { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; FONT-FAMILY: Arial = Narrow } .SiteMaster { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster { LINE-HEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A.SiteMaster:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteMenu:hover { COLOR: blue } .SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; COLOR: maroon; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, = Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.SiteBase:hover { COLOR: blue } .ErrorNormal { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .ErrorSmall { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: red; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial Narrow } .SystemMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: = navy } .SystemErrorMSG { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; COLOR: white; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: red } .buttonUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #fff5d7; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #576a9d; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .buttonTanUnused { PADDING-RIGHT: 1pt; PADDING-LEFT: 1pt; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: = 9pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; MARGIN: 1pt; COLOR: #576a9d; PADDING-TOP: 1pt; = BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff5d7; font-face: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif } .TextLargeBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, = sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .DocketHeaderTitle { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, ' Helvetica', sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextLargeBlack { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: left } .TextLargeBlackcenter { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-ALIGN: center } .TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } A.TextBlue { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000099; LINE-HEIGHT: = normal; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } .TextRed { FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; = FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif } .TextHidenGray { FONT-SIZE: 0pt; COLOR: #ebebe1; LINE-HEIGHT: normal; FONT-FAMILY: = Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left } .Time { FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10px; COLOR: red; LINE-HEIGHT: 4em; = FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; TEXT-ALIGN: center } ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C7D77B.D4DAB240--