CAUSE NO.

219-51636-2009
IN THE INTEREST OF

NATALIE ELIZABETH YABLON,

CAROLINE ALYSON DAVIS,
REAGAN MARGARET YABLON, AND
LILLIAN AMELIA POWELL YABLON,
MINOR CHILDREN

Filed: 10/22/2015 11:19:41 PM

Andrea S. Thompson
District Clerk
Collin County, Texas
By Tiffiney Anderson Deputy
Envelope ID: 7507212

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS
469th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

MOTION TO QUASH OCTOBER 23, 2015 HEARING FOR LACK OF NOTICE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
A party who fails to give proper notice deprives the other party of its constitutional
due process rights and violates the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. These safeguards were
enacted to give all litigants fair notice so as to avoid trial by ambush, undue prejudice, and
the wasting of everybodys time and money. As a matter of law,1 there should not be a
hearing tomorrow because Respondent MARY E. YABLON failed to deliver any kind of
notice for Fridays hearing. The record also shows a pattern of this abuse. So Movant
MARK P. YABLON moves to quash Fridays hearing.
Well-settled 14th amendment due process safeguards under the U.S. Constitution
require proper notice, and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 21 and 21a spell out the
required procedures. At a minimum, the party scheduling the hearing is required to give fair
notice of each hearing and its purpose at least three days before the hearing. Here, MARY
E. YABLON, through longtime attorney JOHN A. STEWART, not only failed to give fair
1 At any time during a suit, a motion to quash is proper when objecting to a hearing where a party did not give proper
notice. See Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton, 699 S.W.2d 199, 203 (Tex. 1985) (We hold that defective jurisdictional
allegations in the petition, defective service of process, and defects in the citation must be challenged by a motion to
quash, not a special appearance.); and Steve Tyrell Prods., Inc. v. Ray, 674 S.W.2d 430, 435 (Tex. App. 1984) (A
motion to quash is the proper method of challenging defective service or defective process.).

notice, she also failed to give any notice for Fridays hearing. MARK P. YABLON
discovered the hearing on the internet, but does not have access to the underlying documents
to comprehend what is before him, nor should he be expected to do so if he had access.
The Texas Supreme Court held a litigant may object to improper service for the first
time on appeal or at trial. Frosch v. Schlumpf, 2 Tex. 422, 423 (1847). The Frosch Court
held, Had the defendant appeared and taken the exception in the court below, there can be no
question but the process would have been quashed on motion. . . . [but he did not], and we are
bound to sustain him and reverse the judgment, and remand the cause. Id. Just last year, the
Dallas Appeals Court held appellant was deprived of notice of the more onerous relief and
because the failed service was due to no fault of appellant, we do not infer constructive
notice to him. Garduza v. Castillo, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6903 (Tex. App.Dallas June
25, 2014). This reasoning should equally apply here.
In another Dallas Appellate review with relevant similarities to the issue here, that
court said Randy White, the appellant, was given verbal notice of a hearing on a third
motion to compel, which was inadequate notice. White v. White, No. 05-11-00498-CV, 2012
WL 425981, at *5 (Tex. App. Feb. 8, 2012). Randy did not attend the hearing, and the trial
court sanctioned him by striking his pleadings. Id. The Dallas Appellate Court held: We
resolve in Randy's favor his contention that he did not receive proper notice of the hearing
on Melinda's third motion to compel. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order granting
Melinda's third motion to compel and striking Randy's pleadings. Id. Rather than waste
time and money, MARK P. YABLON prefers to object once again to MARY E. YABLONS

improper notice in the trial court.

Additionally, MARK P. YABLON asks the Court to note he filed a motion for a
protective order August 5, 2015 to require at least 30 days notice of any hearing during the
school year. MARK P. YABLON also has asked MARY E. YABLON to schedule hearings
when the children and he are not in class because 10-year-old LILLIAN A.P. YABLON and
15-year-old REAGAN M. YABLON live with their father, MARK P. YABLON, and attend
public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas per the Temporary Orders. They have lived in Little
Rock for a few months, but have no existing friends or relatives in the region to watch the
girls if their father had to go to court. MARK P. YABLON also is a fulltime 1L in his first
semester at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bowen School of Law. Missing
several classes regardless of the reason can cause automatic failure per ABA standards. He
also has a graded quiz Friday morning, which would be detrimental to him if he missed it.
Especially for out-of-state residents in their situation, it would be prejudicial to
require them to miss school for one or more days. It also would be an undue burden to
expect him to prepare adequately and make the minimum 10-hour-roundtrip drive between
McKinney and Little Rock each time MARY E. YABLON wants to go to court. Yet she
continues to schedule hearings with little to no advance notice and without conferencing
with MARK P. YABLON to find a mutually convenient time for a hearing.
The record shows MARK P. YABLON originally scheduled a final trial for July 31,
2015 so the terms could be finalized before school began. In response, MARY E. YABLON
requested a jury trial for a modification order, which caused the trial to be reset to October.

MARK P. YABLON then requested a Temporary Orders hearing for August 6 to settle the
childrens residency before school started. MARY E. YABLONS delay in signing the TO
nearly caused a show cause hearing, which the Court set for August 21 when school would
have already begun in Arkansas. Since then, MARY E. YABLON has set three hearings
without fair notice for August 25, October 7, and October 23. The final trial was reset for
May 2016 according to the docket.
In the interest of justice and in the best interest of the children, MARK P. YABLON
prays the Court will quash Fridays hearing and grant all relief available in equity or by law.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Mark P. Yablon
Mark P. Yablon, Movant
5400 Chenonceau Blvd., Apt. #632
Little Rock, AR 72223
Cell: 214-300-5805
markyablon@gmail.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was delivered October 22, 2015,
to Mary E. Yablons attorney, John A. Stewart, via efiletexas.gov and also to Mary E.
Yablon by email.
/s/ Mark P. Yablon
Mark P. Yablon