No. 08-11922-F NANCY B. HAMON, by and through § IN THE DISTRICT COURT her Agent and Attorney-in-Fact, John L. § Roach, 8g § Plainiff § § v, § 116™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT § R. MICHAEL LAGOW and BRENDA. § S. LAGOW, § § Defendants. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § FINAL JUDGMENT CAME ON to be considered Plaintiff"s Motion to Memorialize Nonsuit and for Final Judgment (the “Motion”) filed herein on or about July 16,2010. After considering the Motion, any responses, the pleadings, other exhibits on file and the arguments of counsel, the Court determines that the Motion should be granted, as set out below. Judicial Notice The Court takes judicial notice of the following: 1. This case (the “Case”) concerns Plaintiff's claims against Defendants as set out in Plaintiff's Second Amended Original Petition herein (the “Petition”), including: suit on notes and breach of contract (collectively, the “MSJ Claims”), money had and received; declaratory judgment; action foraccounting; action for unjust enrichment and restitution; punitive and exemplary damages; and attorneys’ fees and expenses. 2. On July 8, 2010, the Court heard Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment (collectively, the “MSJs"), and Defendant Brenda S. Lagow’s Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. At said hearing, the Court FINAL JUDGMENT Page 1announced its rulings (the “Rulings”) on such Motions and granted Plaintiff"s said two MSJs and denied said Defendants's Amended Motion. The Rulings awarded Plaintiff recoveries against both Defendants on Plaintiff's MSJ Claims and as to $10,000.00 of Plaintiff's claims for attorneys’ fees and expenses (collectively, the “Decided Claims”). The balance of Plaintiff's Claims set out in her Petition, other than the Decided Claims, shall be referred to herein as the “Remaining Claims.” 3. The Court has, on July 26, 2010, signed Plaintiff's proposed Orders (the “Orders”) reflecting the Rulings. 4. Conditioned upon the Court signing said Orders, Plaintiff has notified the Court and its Clerk of Plaintiff's voluntary nonsuit, without prejudice, of Plaintiff's Remaining Claims, and Plaintiffhas requested the Court to sign a judgment of nonsuit without prejudice as to the Remaining Claims. Plaintiff has not nonsuited her defenses and claims with respect to any Texas Finance Code § 305.006(d) contention or claim of Defendants for attorneys’ fees and expenses. 5. Because Plaintffhas obtained the relief sought in her MSJs, and because the Court hhas denied the only counterclaim of Defendants herein, and in light of Plaintiff's nonsuit, nothing further remains to be decided in this Case, except for the ministerial duty of the Cour, a tg, discretion, to determine any Texas Finance Code § 305.006(d) claim of Defendants for limited attorneys’ fees related solely to the alleged usury claim, Said statute states that, as part of the usury- correction mechanism, the creditor shall offer to pay the obligor’s reasonable attorneys’ fees as determined by the Court based on the hours reasonably expended by the obligor’s counsel with regard to the alleged violation before the abatement. The Court notes that Plaintiff has now formally offered to pay Defendant's said attomeys’ fees on four occasions: twice on May 10, 2010; once on June 14, 2010; and again at the July 8, 2010 hearing herein. On August 19, 2010, Defendant's ‘counsel presented to the Court and to Plaintiff his claims for such attomeys’ fees. On August 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed her Response and Objections to Defendants’ Attomey’s Fee Claim. The Court FINAL JUDGMENT Page 2has now made its determination regarding such claims for said fees. 6 _ In view of the above, all issues involving all parties in this Case have now been resolved. Nonsuit Memor od 7. WisORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Court hereby recognizes and memorializes Plaintiff's prior nonsuit, without prejudice, of the Remaining Claims, as set out in Plaintiff's Conditional Notice of Nonsuit of Remaining Claims (the “Nonsuit”) filed herein on or about July 16, 2010. Other Judgments 8. Itis ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiff shail have and recover the following relief and remedies as against Defendants R. Michael! Lagow (“Michael Lagow”) and Brenda S. Lagow (“Brenda Lagow”) (a) Plaintiffshall recover the amount of $1,927,342.32 from and against Michael Lagow as of July 8, 2010, plus prejudgment interest at the contract rate of $393.10 per day after July 8, 2010 until the day before the Orders were signed; thereafter, Plaintiff shall also recover from and against Michael Lagow post-judgment interest at the contract rate of ten percent (10%) per annum compounded annually computed on the total amount due under this subparagraph (a) on the day the Orders were signed, until all principal and interest amounts have been fully paid; (b) Plaintiff shall recover the amount of $467,701.37 from and against Brenda Lagow as of July 8, 2010, plus prejudgment interest at the contract rate of $83.91 per day after July 8, 2010 until the day before the Orders were signed, thereafter, Plaintiff shall also recover from and against Brenda Lagow post-judgment interest at the contract rate of ten percent (10%) per annum compounded annually computed on the total amount due under this subparagraph (b) on the day the Orders were signed, until all principal and interest amounts have been fully paid; FINAL JUDGMENT Page 3(c) of said awarded amounts: $467,701.37 (as of July 8, 2010), plusinterest thereon, shall constitute the joint and several liability of Michael Lagow and Brenda Lagow; and $1,459,640.95 (asof July 8, 2010), plus interest thereon, shall constitute the several liability of Michael Lagow; and (a) Plaintiff shall recover the amount of $10,000.00 in attomeys’ fees and expenses, plus ‘court costs, from and against Michae! Lagow and Brenda Lagow, jointly and severally, plus post- judgment interest thereon at the contract rate often percent (10%) per annum compounded annually. 9. tis further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that, with respect to the Texas Finance Code § 303.006(d) claim of Defendants for attomey’s fees regarding the alleged usury violation of Plaintiff before the March 12, 2010 abatement, Defendant Brenda Lagow shall recover the amount of $/‘%, 200 _ in anorneys’ fees from and against Plaintiff Nancy B. Hamon. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that said $1 % 22 _ amount awarded Defendant Brenda Lagow shall be offset against, set aside from, and fully satisfied out of the amounts ordered recovered by Plaintiff from Brenda Lagow in $f 8(6) and (d) above, and said awarded amounts shall be reduced by the $4 7.22 amount awarded to Brenda Lagow in this 19 10, Itishereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that all other relief sought by the parties to this Case not expressly resolved herein is hereby denied. This Final Judgment finally disposes of all claims and causes of action herein by and among the parties hereto and is a final judgment. +e SIGNED AND ORDERED ENTERED this 27 day of, He ST 52010. ‘BRUCE PRIDDY, PRESIDING JUDGE 116™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, DALLAS. COUNTY, TEXAS FINAL JUDGMENT Page 4