On January 9, he checked with neighbors in the area, but they did not provide any information. He then attempted to serve Duemling at 5940 Deer on January 5, January 9, and January 14, 2002. On December 27, Martinez informed Tranter's counsel of the possible new address. He eventually determined that 5940 Deer might be Duemling's new address.
#Tranter inc.is considering a project license
From December 4 to December 27, Martinez checked various resources, including the phone company, the city directory, a city appraisal, a Fort Bliss liaison, driver's license records, and the post office. That same day, Martinez informed Tranter's counsel of his finding. On December 4, Martinez contacted the management of the apartment complex and learned that Duemling had moved without leaving a forwarding address. Martinez then attempted to serve Duemling at 10000 Rushing # 16 on October 29, November 6, November 14, November 20, and November 29.
He advised Tranter's counsel of the possible new address the next day. On October 25, he decided that "10000 Rushing # 16" might be Duemling's address. The next day, he contacted Tranter's counsel to request further information. He looked for a "10000 Rushing # 168," but the apartments at that address only went up to 41. Martinez stated that Tranter's counsel gave him the address of "1000 Rushing # 168." On October 18, 2001, he discovered that 1000 Rushing # 168 does not exist. Tranter attached to his summary judgment response an affidavit by his process server, Sergio Martinez. This is the only listing for a "Duemling" on the page. Attached to the motion was an undated page from a phone book, showing a listing for "Duemling E" at 5940 Deer Avenue.
#Tranter inc.is considering a project trial
In her summary judgment motion, Duemling asked the trial court to take judicial notice of the 2001 phone book published by Southwestern Bell. Duemling was served with process on January 17, 2002. *259 An order authorizing service and a citation issued on October 16, 2001.
Tranter filed his original petition on October 15, 2001.
The accident giving rise to this suit occurred on October 15, 1999. The trial court granted the motion, and Tranter appeals. Duemling filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the suit was barred by the applicable statute of limitations because Tranter failed to exercise due diligence in serving her. Duemling for personal injuries arising from a car accident. 4 BARAJAS, C.J., LARSEN, and McCLURE, JJ. Hughes, Mounce, Green, Myers, Safi & Galatzan, El Paso, for Appellee.īefore Panel No. *258 Jose Montes, Jr., Jose Montes, Jr., P.C., El Paso, for Appellant. 08-03-00044-CV.Ĭourt of Appeals of Texas, El Paso. Projet CostĬompute the project’s internal rate of return to the nearest whole percent.129 S.W.3d 257(2004) Larry TRANTER, Appellant,Įllen K. Omit the “%” sign in your response.)Ī Compute the project’s net present value. (Round your final answer to the nearest whole percent. (Round your answer to 1 decimal place.)Ĭompute the project’s simple rate of return. Omit the “%” sign in your response.)Ĭompute the project’s payback period. (Round discount factor(s) to 3 decimal places and final answer to the nearest whole percent. Omit the “$” sign in your response.)Ĭompute the project’s internal rate of return to the nearest whole percent. Round discount factor(s) to 3 decimal places, intermediate and final answers to the nearest dollar amount. (Negative amount should be indicated by a minus sign. The company’s required rate of return is 10%.Ĭompute the project’s net present value. The project would provide net operating income each year as follows: (Ignore income taxes.)Ĭlick here to view Exhibit 13B-2, to determine the appropriate discount factor(s) using tables.Īll of the above items, except for depreciation, represent cash flows. At the end of nine years, the project would terminate and the equipment would have no salvage value. Tranter, Inc., is considering a project that would have a nine-year life and would require a $3,360,000 investment in equipment.