LIT UPDATE
MAR 15, JUN 6, 2024
Good afternoon
I have been reading;
“11 Charged in National Foreclosure Relief Scam”
Followed up with;
“Lead defendant in nationwide foreclosure rescue scam sentenced to 10 years in prison”
I would like to draw your attention to one of the many Foreclosure Relief Scams in Texas we’ve been monitoring on Laws In Texas . com (“LIT”).
Please find the following article which is self-explanatory, and confirms criminal activity by sanctioned State Bar of Texas “foreclosure defense” lawyer Robert Clarence Newark and his client, Roderick Kagy, et al.
The actions and the evidence provided by the homeowner Tim Cox in his latest lawsuit(s) provided some missing information we needed before triggering this email.
In short, his allegations align with your own criminal indictments and subsequent prosecution(s) in Ohio, and I respectfully ask that you review and consider this case for criminal investigation.
Please note for transparency, LIT publishes all email correspondence.
Y’all have a great day.
Mark Burke
Justice Seeker
#restoretx
TIMOTHY R COX vs. ZP-1 INVESTMENTS, LLC
DC-24-02281
FEB 13, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAR 14, 2024
COMPLAINT (EXHIBIT 3)
Plaintiff(s) contend Defendant(s) are actively committing Deed Fraud.
Defendant(s) obtained Plaintiff(s) confidence by offering mortgage negotiation services in August 2021.
Plaintiff(s) lender has confirmed no attempt to renegotiate the mortgage for the property by Defendant(s) or any other third party.
Defendant(s) have illegally leased Plaintiff(s) property to an unknown occupant.
Of great concern to Plaintiff{s) is the Special Warranty Deed {Exhibit A) executed by Plaintiff(s) October 1, 2021 and who were also wholly unaware of the fraudulent inducement being perpetrated upon them by Defendant{s).
On or about August 25, 2021, Plaintiff(s) entered into an arrangement attached herein as Exhibit B, with ZP1 lnvestments, LLC regarding negotiating the mortgage for Plaintiff(s) property at 6464 Ellsworth Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75214 in Dallas County.
Defendant(s) did not countersign the arrangement.
Plaintiff(s) signed a Special Warranty Deed attached herein as Exhibit A, granting the property to Defendant(s)
Defendant(s) did not file the Deed with the county.
Defendant(s) instructed Plaintiff(s) to not communicate with Plaintiff(s) lender.
On February 6, 2024, Plaintiff(s) called lender to verify negotiations were active with Defendant(s) regarding Plaintiff(s) property.
Lender stated they have no record of any call, communication or negotiation with the Defendant(s) or any third party.
On or about January 2022, Defendant entered into an illegal lease agreement with the current occupants of the property.
Defendant was not authorized to enter into any agreement without prior written, express consent from Plaintiff(s).
Defendant has not made any receipts, agreements, leases or arrangements available to Plaintiff(s).
Defendant has collected rental payments from the illegal occupants of the property starting on or about January 1, 2022 and continues to do so.
On February 7, 2024, Plaintiff(s) delivered to the illegal occupants a notice to vacate and demand for possession by February 15, 2024.
On February 8, 2024, copies were sent certified mail to the illegal occupants as well.
Plaintiff(s) instructed illegal occupants to cease all payments to ZP-1 Investments and for any remaining payments the occupants are compelled to submit, be sent directly and fully to Plaintiff(s) lender.
Plaintiff(s) is actively pursuing eviction as prescribed by Dallas County JP 3-1, of the illegal occupants currently residing at Plaintiff(s) property.
IN RE: A PURPORTED LIEN OR CLAIM AGAINST TIMOTHY B COX
DC-24-00622
JAN 16, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAR 14, 2024
NON-SUITED
In this latest lawsuit by Tim Cox, he reveals what LIT already deduced, but he’s attached evidence and an affidavit, which makes his allegations more solid:
THE FORECLOSURE RESCUE SCAM IN DETAIL:
(1) He claims that his home has been rented since Jan 2022 by ZP1/Kagy/Newark.
(2) He claims the $10 buck title deed was not recorded, intentionally to keep pryin’ eyes from seeing it.
(3) He includes a contract which is eye-popping. Any profit on sale is “split” 20 percent to homeowner and 80 percent to scammers.
(4) He claims that at no time did they approach the mortgage servicer about a “Fresh Start” as the contract claims.
(5) This contract and the actions of Newark, Kagy, the foreclosure mill(s) and the courts confirm LIT’s allegations of fraud, corruption and kickbacks.
More will follow on this developing story.
Cox v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-8XS, US Bank National Association
(3:22-cv-02906)
District Court, N.D. Texas, Judge Joe Fish
DEC 27, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 31, 2022
ELECTRONIC ORDER:
December 30, 2022, the plaintiff was ordered to file a certificate of interested persons satisfying the requirements of Local Rule 3.1(c) or 3.2(e) no later than January 17, 2023 (docket entry 4) but has failed to do so.
Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice.
Rule 16(f)(1)(C), F.R. Civ. P.
(Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 1/20/2023) (chmb) (Entered: 01/20/2023)
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:22-cv-02906-G
| Cox v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-8XS, US Bank National Association et al Assigned to: Senior Judge A. Joe Fish
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question |
Date Filed: 12/27/2022 Date Terminated: 01/20/2023 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: All Other Real Property Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 12/30/2022 | 4 | ELECTRONIC ORDER: On December 27, 2022, the defendants removed this civil action to this court. Local Rule 81.2 provides that “[w]ithin 21 days after the notice of removal is filed, the plaintiff shall file a separately signed certificate of interested persons that complies with LR 3.1(c) or 3.2(e). If the plaintiff concurs in the accuracy of another party’s previously-filed certificate, the plaintiff may adopt that certificate.” LR 3.1(c) and 3.2(e) in turn require that when a complaint is filed, the plaintiff must provide the clerk with “a separately signed certificate of interested persons — in a form approved by the clerk — that contains — in addition to the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a) — a complete list of all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, guarantors, insurers, affiliates, parent or subsidiary corporations, or other legal entities that are financially interested in the outcome of the case. If a large group of persons or firms can be specified by a generic description, individual listing is not necessary.” Accordingly, no later than January 17, 2023, the plaintiff must comply with Rule 3.1(c) or 3.2(e) so that the court can ensure that recusal is not required in this case. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 12/30/2022) (chmb) (Entered: 12/30/2022) |
| 01/20/2023 | 5 | ELECTRONIC ORDER: December 30, 2022, the plaintiff was ordered to file a certificate of interested persons satisfying the requirements of Local Rule 3.1(c) or 3.2(e) no later than January 17, 2023 (docket entry 4) but has failed to do so. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. Rule 16(f)(1)(C), F.R. Civ. P. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 1/20/2023) (chmb) (Entered: 01/20/2023) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 03/19/2023 18:38:00 |
ELECTRONIC ORDER:
On December 27, 2022, the defendants removed this civil action to this court.
Local Rule 81.2 provides that “[w]ithin 21 days after the notice of removal is filed, the plaintiff shall file a separately signed certificate of interested persons that complies with LR 3.1(c) or 3.2(e).
If the plaintiff concurs in the accuracy of another party’s previously-filed certificate, the plaintiff may adopt that certificate.” LR 3.1(c) and 3.2(e) in turn require that when a complaint is filed, the plaintiff must provide the clerk with “a separately signed certificate of interested persons — in a form approved by the clerk — that contains — in addition to the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a) — a complete list of all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, guarantors, insurers, affiliates, parent or subsidiary corporations, or other legal entities that are financially interested in the outcome of the case.
If a large group of persons or firms can be specified by a generic description, individual listing is not necessary.”
Accordingly, no later than January 17, 2023,
the plaintiff must comply with Rule 3.1(c) or 3.2(e) so that the court can ensure that recusal is not required in this case.
(Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 12/30/2022) (chmb) (Entered: 12/30/2022)
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(c), Defendants Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-8XS, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor In Interest to Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, Successor by Merger to Lasalle Bank National Association, as Trustee (“Trustee” or “Defendant”), and Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (“SLS” or “Defendant”) (together, “Defendants”) give notice and hereby remove this action from the Dallas County, County Court at Law No. 4 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. Defendants remove this matter based on federal question jurisdiction. In support, Defendants show the Court as follows:
I. STATE COURT ACTION
1. On or about December 1, 2022, Plaintiff Timothy Cox (“Plaintiff”) filed his Original Petition, Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary Injunction, Permanent Injunction, and Request for Disclosures (the “Complaint”) in an action styled: Timothy Cox v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage loan Trust, 2007-XS, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, Successor by Merger to Lasalle Bank National Association, as Trustee, under Cause No. CC-22-06835-D (“State Court Action”).
2. In the State Court Action, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence, violation of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. 1024, et seq., and violation of Section 51.002 of the Texas Property Code in connection with the attempted foreclosure of the real property commonly known as 6464 Ellsworth Ave., Dallas, TX 75214 (the “Property”). Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(d), this Notice of Removal will be filed with the County Court at Law No.4, Dallas County Texas, and a copy of this Notice of Removal will also be served on all parties.
4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(a), copies of all process, pleadings, orders, and other papers filed in the County Court at Law No.4, Dallas County, Texas and obtained by Defendants are attached hereto.
5. In Support of this removal, as required by Local Rule 81.1, please find attached as follows:
Exhibit A: Civil Cover Sheet
Exhibit B: Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet
Exhibit C: Index of State Court Documents
Exhibit D: State Court Docket Sheet
Exhibit E: State Court File
Exhibit F: Dallas County CAD Valuation for the Property1
II. TIMLINESS OF REMOVAL
6. Defendants have not been served with process in this cause. Less than thirty (30) days have passed since Defendants received notice of this lawsuit, and thus, removal is timely. 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1).
III. VENUE
7. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, because the State Court Action is currently pending within the district and division. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also 28 U.S.C. §124(a)(1).
IV. BASIS FOR REMOVAL
A. Federal Question
8. The Court has original jurisdiction over the State Court Action under 12 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of RESPA which is codified at 12
U.S.C. 1024, et seq. Section 1331 provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 12 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, Defendants remove this action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).
9. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s additional claims because they derive from the same set of facts forming their claim under 12
U.S.C. 1024, et seq.
B. Diversity of Citizenship
i. Citizenship of the Parties
1 Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Defendants’ request the Court take judicial notice of Exhibit F.
10. Plaintiff is an individual in Dallas County, Texas. See Petition, at ¶ 2. Therefore, Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas for diversity jurisdiction.
11. U.S. Bank National Association, which is sued in its capacity as trustee, is national banking association. When determining the citizenship of a trust for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, it is the citizenship of the trustee which controls. Navarro Sav. Assoc. v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 464-66 (1980). The citizen of U.S. Bank is determined by the location of its main office as set forth in its articles of association. See 28 U.S.C. §1348; Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 318 (2006). U.S. Bank’s main office is currently located in Ohio under its articles of association. Therefore, U.S. Bank is a citizen of Ohio.
12. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC is a limited liability company. For diversity purposes, the citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of its members. Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1080 (5th Cir. 2008). SLS has its principal place of business in Highland Rach, Colorado. SLS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of its sole member, Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings, LLC. Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of its sole member, Computershare US Services, Inc. As a corporation, Computershare US Services, Inc. is a citizen of the state where it is incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 88-89 (2005). Computershare US Services, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in Illinois.
13. Accordingly, there is complete diversity among the parties.
ii. Amount in Controversy
14. Although Plaintiff’s Complaint does not specifically allege the amount in controversy, it is clear from review of the Complaint and the evidence attached hereto that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
15. The Complaint seeks injunctive relief, and damages and title related to the foreclosure of the Property. “In actions seeking declaratory relief or injunction relief the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Leininger v. Leininger, 705 F.2d 727, 729 (5th Cir. 1983). In other words, “[t]he amount in controversy, in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief, is the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented.” St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. V. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1252-1253 (5th Cir. 1998). “It is well established in actions in which declaratory or injunctive relief is sought, the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes is measured by the direct pecuniary value of the right which the plaintiff seeks to enforce or protect or the value of the object which is the subject matter of the suit.” Hartford Ins. Group v. Lou–Con Inc., 293 F.3d 908, 910 (5th Cir.2002) (“The amount is controversy is ‘the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented.’”) (quoting Leininger, 705 F.2d 727, 729 (5th Cir.1983)).
16. The Fifth Circuit has held that when the right to the property is at issue, the value of the property controls the amount in controversy. Farkas v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, 737 F.3d 338, 341 (5th Cir. 2013); Waller v. Prof’l Ins. Corp., 296 F.2d 545, 547–48 (5th Cir.1961); see also Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Knox, 351 Fed. Appx. 844, 848 (5th Cir.2009) (Waller extended to a suit seeking injunctive relief to prevent foreclosure).
17. The most recent tax appraisal for the Property set the market value of the Property at $642,630.2 This alone satisfies the $75,000 requirement. See Griffin v. HSBC Bank, 2010 WL 4781297 at *3 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2010) (considering appraisal district figure as evidence that amount in controversy requirement was met). Accordingly, considering the value of the Property, it is apparent on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000.
V. CONCLUSION
18. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants remove this State Court Action from the Dallas County, County Court at Law No. 4 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, so that this Court may assume jurisdiction over the cause as provided by law.
2 Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the Dallas County Appraisal District valuation of the Property. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Evidence 201, Defendants respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of Exhibit F.
Respectfully submitted,
BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TURNER & ENGEL, LLP
/s/ Shawnika L. Brooks
Shawnika L. Brooks f/k/a Shawnika L. Harris
State Bar No. 24106058
Robert D. Forster, II
State Bar No. 24048470
4004 Belt Line Road, Ste. 100
Addison, Texas 75001
(972) 386-5040
(972) 341-0734 (Facsimile)
RobertFO@bdfgroup.com
ShawnikB@bdfgroup.com
Attorneys for Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF filing system, and will send a true and correct copy to the following:
Via E-service: Robert@newarkfirm.com Robert C. Newark, III
A Newark Firm
1341 W. Mockingbird Lane,
Ste 600 W Dallas, Texas 75247
Attorney for Plaintiff
/s/ Shawnika L. Brooks
Shawnika L. Brooks
The home was listed for rent per Zillow between May and September of this year.
The wife Tisha, is a clothing designer who received two forgiven PPP loans amountingto $20k. She is apparently residing at a duplex home owned by Dale and Carol Steffans.
As far as foreclosure mill BDF Hopkins, they’ve dropped [Shelley] Hopkins in recent cases, preferring to name Harris, now Brooks as attorney of record. Robert Forster retains his co-counsel position, overseeing the foreclosures.
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:22-cv-02906-G
| Cox v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-8XS, US Bank National Association et al Assigned to: Senior Judge A. Joe Fish
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question |
Date Filed: 12/27/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: All Other Real Property Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Timothy Cox | represented by | Robert C Newark , III A Newark Firm 1341 West Mockingbird Lane Suite 600W Dallas, TX 75247 866-230-7236 Fax: 888-316-3398 Email: robert@newarkfirm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing* |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-8XS, US Bank National Association | represented by | Shawnika LaShone Brooks Barrett Daffin Frappier LLP 4004 Beltline Rd Suite 100 Addison, TX 75001 972-386-5040 Fax: 972-341-0566 Email: shawnikb@bdfgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing |
| Defendant | ||
| Specialized Loan Servicing LLC | represented by | Shawnika LaShone Brooks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 12/27/2022 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-8XS, US Bank National Association, Specialized Loan Servicing LLC. (Filing fee $402; receipt number ATXNDC-13400344) In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the Judges Copy Requirements and Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information – Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet A – Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Cover Sheet Supplement B – Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Exhibit(s) C – Index of State Court Documents, # 4 Exhibit(s) D – State Court Docket, # 5 Exhibit(s) E. State Court File, # 6 Exhibit(s) F – Dallas County CAD) (Harris, Shawnika) (Entered: 12/27/2022) |
| 12/27/2022 | 2 | CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-8XS, US Bank National Association, Specialized Loan Servicing LLC. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Harris, Shawnika) (Entered: 12/27/2022) |
| 12/27/2022 | 3 | New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Horan). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (ndt) (Entered: 12/28/2022) |
| 12/30/2022 | 4 | ELECTRONIC ORDER: On December 27, 2022, the defendants removed this civil action to this court. Local Rule 81.2 provides that “ |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 12/31/2022 11:51:03 |
BAD ADVICE
How Does Texas Lawyer and Bandit Robert Berleth Still Have Legal Access to Houston’s Federal Courthouse? https://t.co/Kgyy93M9Gs pic.twitter.com/BYSUfmh6u3— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) December 29, 2022
Who is Timothy ‘Tim’ Cox?
Tim Cox’s experience in both real estate and home renovations makes him a unique and important asset to Briggs Freeman Sotheby’s International Realty.
“When I walk into a property, I can feel the history,” Cox says. “I look at houses from the inside out.
I know the work behind the finished product, and I use that knowledge to my buyers’ and sellers’ benefit.
As a sophomore at The University of Texas, Tim Cox embarked on his real estate career, leasing apartments in and around Austin.
Fast forward 23 years and you’ll find that Cox still has that entrepreneurial spirit and drive, only more experienced and knowledgeable – and with a track record of success.
In 2000, Cox bought a small house in Lakewood on Vickery Boulevard, which he remodeled himself. From this beginning, Cox built a successful business remodeling homes in the Lakewood, M Streets, Highland Park, and North Dallas neighborhoods.
The knowledge Cox gained from this venture makes him an expert at helping his clients find the perfect home.
“Helping my clients find a property for that expansion or remodel they have been dreaming of can be difficult”, Cox says.
Tim helps his clients identify potential challenges and limitations with a property quickly.
“I frankly share my knowledge of construction with my clients. The more quickly I identify an issue with a property, the less of my client’s valuable time I take.”
His professional experience has afforded this broad expertise, but that’s not his strongest attribute.
What he does best for his clients is provide actionable insight and knowledge, give direct and honest responses, and maintain a fierce loyalty and commitment to his clients’ needs and objectives.
Cox lives in Dallas in the Lakewood area with his wife, noted designer Tish Cox, and their two daughters Kennedy and Sheridan.
He grew up in McKinney, just north of Dallas, where the Cox family has been part of the very fiber of McKinney since 1938 through Cox Chevrolet and The Carey Cox Company.
Now, four generations of the Cox family still get together in McKinney on a monthly basis, and Cox says it is a luxury to be so close to his extended family.
He says his strong family ties and deep Texas roots are responsible for shaping his character, values, and his entrepreneurial spirit.
For more information, or to schedule a private appointment to assess your own property needs and investment goals, contact Tim Cox at (972) 407-4777 or tcox@briggsfreeman.com.
Who is Dallas Designer Tish Cox?
Before the launch of her eponymous clothing line in 2010, the Dallas designer Tish Cox’s fashion credentials were limited to crafting dresses for her Barbie dolls at the knee of her seamstress grandmother and a sewing class in college.
That is, until one of her school friends—who had admired the self-made creations Cox sported around campus—asked Cox to make her a dress for a benefit honoring Diane von Furstenberg.
So Cox dusted off an old Singer from her mom’s attic, rolled out some fabric on her kitchen counter, and got to work.
The result, an asymmetrical khaki shift dress with one puffy sleeve and an exposed gold zipper, drew compliments from Vogue’s André Leon Talley and the designer Zac Posen.
Another friend, who happened to own the Dallas boutique Cabana—long loved by stylish women for its range of exclusive, singular pieces—persuaded the busy mother of two to do a trunk show for the store.
“I went home and put a little collection together, thinking that it would be a hobby,” Cox says.
She showed up with ten dresses in tow.
By late morning, she had sixty orders, and by the time the season wrapped, she had single-handedly sewn more than a hundred pieces in her kitchen.
“I decided that I was going to burn out real quick if I didn’t figure out a different way to do this,” Cox says with a laugh.
Cox regrouped and, working with a local production facility, came up with a game plan that included her own mini-atelier in the back of Cabana, where her pieces go fast.
Her architectural draping and commitment to comfort give even casual styles a sheen of glamour—the informality of the flowy Kloe shirt, for instance, contrasts with tops like the Deb, a fitted sleeveless party staple with a peplum bottom.
That balance struck a chord, winning her independent label legions of fans in just a few short years.
For Cox, who takes pride in popping out to the grocery store in a structured blouse, polish is not reserved for a big night out. “I design for myself, but more important, I design for the Southern lady who doesn’t want to wear workout clothes every day,” she says.
Cox’s work so enthralled one client, Natalie Bloomingdale—a Texas native who now lives in Los Angeles—that Bloomingdale created a new venture: the e-commerce site the SIL (that’s Stuff I Love), which launched in August with the aim of making Cox’s meticulously crafted, whimsical pieces accessible beyond Texas.
The SIL carries Cox hits such as the Alex dress, a sleek column that hides a spandex inner layer perfect if you’re dancing the night away (or doubling up on the hors d’oeuvres).
Another top seller, the ½ and ½ pant—a skinny silk-faille hybrid—works equally well with a silk popover or a bold one-shoulder top.
It works so well, in fact, that each year Cox considers a new pant design to take its place, only to have loyal fans remind her that she simply needs to keep this one around—which Cox is happy to do.
“This industry and clothing in general can be so fickle,” she says.
“But to be able to make someone feel good about herself? That’s not fickle at all.”
Gilbert Flores Switches From Bandit Lawyer Robert Robbin’ Newark to Bandit Lawyer Erick DeLaRogue
Homeowner Gilbert Flores case has just ended with Federal Judge Andrew Hanen dismissal with prejudice, but Delarue will take the case.
Emplify LLC’s Chase Foreman Appears Pro Se in Foreclosure Proceedings for Investment Property
Previously Acting Pro Se for His LLC, Foreman Faces Legal Challenges Under Texas Law when trying to stop foreclosure of business property.
Despicable Opposing Counsel’s Late Late Show Complainin’ About Legal Bandits Raises Skepticism
HWA seeks attorney fees as a sanction and rescission of TRO. However, they have been complicit in allowing the past abuses to go uncontested.
