Unique Mica Green v. Texas Funeral Service Commission

ACCEPTED
15-25-00149-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
12/3/2025 7:30 AM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS
REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT AUSTIN, TEXAS
12/3/2025 7:30:10 AM
UNIQUE M. GREEN CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk

In the Court of Appeals for the Fifteenth District of Texas

Case No. 15-25-00149-CV

1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Appellant, Unique M. Green, files this Reply Brief to correct the factual record,

rebut the Texas Funeral Service Commission’s (“TFSC”) legal arguments, and

demonstrate that the agency acted outside its authority when it revoked an already

renewed and active funeral establishment license. This Reply Brief incorporates all

previously filed exhibits and addresses every issue raised in the TFSC Appellee

Brief.

The evidentiary record shows that Appellant renewed her establishment license

online before expiration. TFSC accepted the renewal fee, the online system

processed the renewal, and the license was updated to ACTIVE status. Once

renewed, the license became a protected property interest under state and federal

law.

Despite this, in January 2025 the Executive Director of TFSC unilaterally revoked

the renewed license without notice, without filing charges, without initiating a

contested case, and without providing a hearing. Texas law requires all of these

steps before revocation. TFSC bypassed every one.

2
Additionally, Appellant’s attorney, Andre Wheeler, contacted the Executive

Director requesting that the matter be set for hearing and referred to the State

Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). TFSC did not respond and never

initiated the administrative process. Attorney Wheeler’s affidavit, included in the

trial court filings, confirms these facts.

This Reply Brief addresses all issues raised by TFSC, including standing,

exhaustion, property ownership, background check completion, the COO

accusations, the “expiration” theory, sovereign immunity, ultra vires conduct, due

process violations, and TFSC’s misapplication of its own rules.

3
I. APPELLANT HAS STANDING

TFSC argues that Appellant lacks standing because (1) she does not appear on

county deed records as the property owner, (2) her individual funeral director

license expired, and (3) the establishment license allegedly expired. These

arguments are legally baseless.

Funeral establishment licensure does not depend on property ownership. Many

establishments operate from leased property. The controlling factor is operational

control, which Appellant exercised. Additionally, an individual funeral director

license is not a prerequisite to renewal or operation of an establishment license.

Standing exists because TFSC’s unauthorized revocation directly injured Appellant

by removing an active license she had lawfully renewed. That satisfies Article III

injury in fact.

TFSC repeatedly relies on Harris County deed records to argue that Appellant

could not lawfully renew or operate the establishment license because she is not

listed as the deed owner. This argument is unsupported by statute, rule, or TFSC’s

own historical practice. Texas law does not require an establishment licensee to

4
own the underlying real property. Funeral establishments across Texas routinely

operate in leased buildings or buildings owned by third parties. The establishment

license attaches to the operation of the funeral business—not title to the land.

TFSC’s attempt to convert property ownership into a prerequisite for licensure is

legally baseless and contradicts the plain text of its own regulations. Moreover,

TFSC cannot label COO filings “false” without initiating a contested case, issuing

notice, presenting charges, and allowing a SOAH adjudication. None of these

occurred. Therefore, the deed argument is both procedurally invalid and

substantively irrelevant to the legality of Appellant’s renewed license.

II. THE BACKGROUND CHECK WAS COMPLETED

TFSC repeatedly argues Appellant “never completed the background check.” This

claim is false. The exhibits in the appellate record demonstrate that Appellant

completed the required background check. The TFSC licensing system will not

renew or activate a license if a background check is not completed.

TFSC accepted the fee, processed the renewal, and marked the license ACTIVE.

These steps could not occur if the background check were incomplete. TFSC’s

5
argument contradicts its own automated system and the documentary evidence.

III. TFSC’S “EXPIRATION” THEORY IS FALSE

TFSC’s assertion that the establishment license “expired by its own terms” is both

factually and legally incorrect. Appellant renewed the license online before

expiration, TFSC accepted the renewal fee, and the license was updated to

ACTIVE status. A renewed license does not expire; it continues into the new

licensing period. TFSC’s reliance on an “expiration” theory ignores the renewal

that the agency itself processed.

TFSC’s January 2025 action was a revocation of an active, renewed license—not a

natural expiration. Appellant therefore possessed a protected property interest that

could not be removed without notice and a hearing.

IV. COO ACCUSATIONS FAIL

TFSC claims Appellant submitted false information on Change-of-Ownership

forms. COO forms are administrative and do not determine ownership of an

establishment license. Moreover, TFSC never filed charges or initiated an

6
investigation. Without a contested case, TFSC cannot legally label filings “false.”

Due process prohibits such action.

The COO filings were accurate as submitted, and TFSC’s accusation has no factual

or procedural basis.

V. COUNTY PROPERTY RECORDS ARE IRRELEVANT

TFSC relies on county property deeds to argue Appellant cannot renew an

establishment license. Texas law does not require an establishment licensee to own

the underlying real property. Many funeral homes operate on leased land. Property

ownership is irrelevant to the renewal or maintenance of an establishment license.

TFSC’s deed argument is therefore misplaced and unsupported.

VI. EXHAUSTION DOES NOT APPLY

TFSC argues Appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies. This argument

fails because TFSC never initiated a contested case. A person cannot request a

hearing that the agency refuses to provide.

7
Trial court exhibits show that Appellant’s attorney, Andre Wheeler, emailed the

Executive Director specifically requesting that TFSC set the matter for hearing and

refer it to SOAH. TFSC ignored the request and never initiated the administrative

process. Wheeler also executed an affidavit confirming these facts.

When an agency refuses to begin the administrative process, exhaustion rules do

not apply.

VII. THE REVOCATION WAS ULTRA VIRES

The Executive Director revoked a renewed license without following any statutory

procedure. Revocation requires notice, a statement of charges, and a SOAH

hearing. None of these steps occurred. An official who acts without authority

commits ultra vires conduct, and sovereign immunity does not protect such actions.

This Court may review and restrain unlawful executive action.

8
VIII. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOES NOT APPLY

TFSC argues sovereign immunity bars this suit. Not so. Under Texas law, ultra

vires suits seeking prospective relief are not barred. Appellant seeks only to undo

an unlawful revocation and restore the lawfully renewed license.

Additionally, TFSC’s action constitutes a final agency decision subject to APA

review.

IX. DUE PROCESS WAS VIOLATED

Appellant held a protected property interest in her renewed establishment license.

Due process required TFSC to provide notice and a hearing before revocation.

TFSC provided neither.

TFSC also argues Appellant waived due process by not requesting a hearing. This

is impossible—TFSC never offered a hearing or initiated the administrative

process. One cannot waive a hearing never provided.

9
X. TFSC’S CASE LAW IS INAPPOSITE

TFSC cites several cases to justify its conduct. None involve revocation of a

renewed and active license without notice or hearing. TFSC’s cases concern

incomplete renewals or applications—not post-renewal revocations. The

distinctions are fundamental.

This case is not about a denied renewal; it is about an unlawful revocation.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Appellant respectfully requests that this Court reverse

the trial court’s dismissal and remand the case for full adjudication on the merits,

or alternatively issue relief restoring the renewed establishment license.

/s/ Unique M Green

Unique M Green

1116 Elberta St

Houston, Tx. 77051

281-408-3103

Greenmica1980@aol.com

10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of this brief was served through the Court’s

electronic filing system on this date.

/s/ Unique M. Green

Appellant, Pro Se

11
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Envelope ID: 108644235
Filing Code Description: Brief Not Requesting Oral Argument
Filing Description: Appellant Reply Brief
Status as of 12/3/2025 9:03 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Catherine Hughes catherine.hughes@oag.texas.gov 12/3/2025 7:30:10 AM SENT

Sherlyn Harper Sherlyn.Harper@oag.texas.gov 12/3/2025 7:30:10 AM SENT

Paulette King acommunityfuneralhome@yahoo.com 12/3/2025 7:30:10 AM SENT

Unique MGreen greenmica1980@aol.com 12/3/2025 7:30:10 AM SENT

Sarah Saunders info@tfsc.texas.gov 12/3/2025 7:30:10 AM SENT

Michael Nored michael.nored@tfsc.texas.gov 12/3/2025 7:30:10 AM SENT