SMU Responds to Lawsuit

FYI:
February 27, 2006
SMU University Gardens Statement
To clarify information being reported in the media regarding a lawsuit involving SMU’s purchase of the University Gardens condominium complex, we share the following:
SMU policy for the last decade has been to acquire property adjacent to campus for expansion and to prevent incompatible commercial development. University Gardens has been one of several properties of interest in our geographic area.
The lawsuit filed against SMU by attorney Gary Vodicka is a dispute over title to land that was legally acquired by SMU in accordance with homeowner association regulations and Texas law. Mr. Vodicka was an investor-owner who is now seeking an unreasonably and unrealistically high payment from SMU, even though SMU paid above-market prices to him and other owners and investors at University Gardens. SMU has provided the title company with payment for the units he owned, which remains unclaimed at the title company.
Mr. Vodicka is occupying a unit he does not legally own – since SMU now owns the entire complex. Further, he rented three units to unsuspecting tenants who did not know the complex is owned by SMU, had been declared obsolete because of physical problems, and is scheduled for demolition. He is using heightened media interest in SMU to advance his personal claims.
February 27, 2006
SMU University Gardens Statement
To clarify information being reported in the media regarding a lawsuit involving SMU’s purchase of the University Gardens condominium complex, we share the following:
SMU policy for the last decade has been to acquire property adjacent to campus for expansion and to prevent incompatible commercial development. University Gardens has been one of several properties of interest in our geographic area.
The lawsuit filed against SMU by attorney Gary Vodicka is a dispute over title to land that was legally acquired by SMU in accordance with homeowner association regulations and Texas law. Mr. Vodicka was an investor-owner who is now seeking an unreasonably and unrealistically high payment from SMU, even though SMU paid above-market prices to him and other owners and investors at University Gardens. SMU has provided the title company with payment for the units he owned, which remains unclaimed at the title company.
Mr. Vodicka is occupying a unit he does not legally own – since SMU now owns the entire complex. Further, he rented three units to unsuspecting tenants who did not know the complex is owned by SMU, had been declared obsolete because of physical problems, and is scheduled for demolition. He is using heightened media interest in SMU to advance his personal claims.