Bush Library/Lawsuit

[couch 'em]

Didn't see anyone post this article from a few days ago:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 38c48.html

Lawyer refuses to give ground easily in battle against SMU

His tenacity in condo suit is praised by some tenants, but critics call him a troublemaker

12:00 AM CDT on Thursday, May 25, 2006

By HOLLY K. HACKER and KRISTEN HOLLAND / The Dallas Morning News

The law office of Gary M. Vodicka is also his home: a one-bedroom condominium in a mostly deserted complex, surrounded by chain-link fences. He has no secretary. His only phone is his cell.

With this lean operation, Mr. Vodicka works on his biggest case ever: a lawsuit against Southern Methodist University that has attracted national headlines. He says SMU fraudulently ousted condo owners so it could raze the buildings and make way for the George W. Bush Presidential Library. SMU denies the charges.

Mr. Vodicka, 46, could have moved out of the complex, on the campus's eastern edge, months ago when most of his neighbors did. But he refuses to budge, and he still rents out three other units he bought years ago. Leaving is what the university wants of him – and obliging SMU is the last thing he wants.

So he stays in his 688-square-foot condo, which he says is too messy to show reporters, and files motion after motion in his quest to beat SMU.

The man who has thrown an exasperating kink into the university's presidential library bid is no stranger to controversy or unconventional behavior. He once ran from a process server trying to serve him with papers in his own divorce case. He has questioned himself on the witness stand.

He's praised by some as a determined underdog willing to defend property owners in the 347-unit University Gardens complex against SMU. Detractors call him an overzealous troublemaker.

Pat Davenport, a former University Gardens resident, said she didn't want to sell but, as a retiree on a fixed income, didn't have much of a choice. She supports Mr. Vodicka. "He has the cojones to do this. I'd love to see him victorious," she said.

SMU officials say the school bought University Gardens, including Mr. Vodicka's four units, last year for $51 million, giving owners a fair price. They call Mr. Vodicka and his three tenants squatters.

"Now, at the eleventh hour, they want to stop us at a time when the property has been completely conveyed to SMU," attorney John McElhaney, who represents the university, said during a February court hearing.

Mr. Vodicka says he was driven to sue SMU because dozens of retirees, including his mother, aunt and uncle, were forced to sell at low prices.

"They're trying to steal my home," he said. "It may not be much, but it's mine."

Still, Mr. Vodicka says he loves SMU. It's where he earned his law degree. His parents, paternal grandfather and an uncle also are alumni. And he still hangs out on campus.

Recently, he took two reporters to the SMU ballroom, where, he said, the University Gardens condo board met when it declared the complex obsolete, a step necessary to sell the buildings. The main doors were locked, so he traipsed in through the kitchen.

As he flipped through a thick stack of papers on the case, he recounted the meeting. Then he trotted over to a grand piano in the corner and played a few pop pieces. He said he's self-taught. With the SMU case, he said, he doesn't get to play as much as he'd like.

But the case against his alma mater, he said, is about principle.

"I want SMU to get the Bush library," he said. "I just don't want them to put it on my land."

Most of Mr. Vodicka's 20-year legal career has been relatively low-profile compared with the SMU case – a mix of bankruptcy, garnishment cases and litigation. He has had a few partners but prefers to go solo.

When he shows up in court, he makes a point of introducing himself and shaking hands with everyone, including his opponents. He walks briskly and speaks with animation, underscoring points and at times skipping from topic to topic.

In several cases, including the SMU lawsuit, Mr. Vodicka has acted as both plaintiff and attorney. At a February court hearing, he took the unusual step of questioning himself on the witness stand about his ownership of the four units and the condition of the whole complex. Rather than leave the witness stand, Mr. Vodicka would shift to face a different direction each time he asked and answered a question. Visiting Judge M. Kent Simms cut him off after about 45 minutes because of time restraints.

One SMU classmate, Ted Anderson, said that Mr. Vodicka was laid-back in law school but that he's not surprised to see him sue the university.

"I have litigated [against] him in the last few years and know him to be very aggressive," Mr. Anderson said. "I didn't foresee any of this aggressiveness and cantankerousness and argumentativeness."

When he decided to take on SMU over University Gardens last August, Mr. Vodicka filed three lawsuits against the university within 30 minutes. They were identical, except each listed a different one of his condos.

Mr. Vodicka said he wanted to file multiple suits to have SMU "running all around ... just to have them fighting on different fronts."

The university's lawyers say Mr. Vodicka was shopping around for a judge he likes. He denies that.

He argued that Judge Jay Patterson, who ended up presiding over the consolidated case, is biased because he received his law degree from the university and supervises a program for SMU law students.

In March, Mr. Vodicka asked the Court of Appeals for a new judge. The court denied his request. He said he will appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.

To date, most of the lawsuit has involved not the dispute over University Gardens, but which court will hear the case.

"We believe it is a delaying tactic. I would presume he doesn't want to get to the merits of the case," SMU attorney Leon Bennett said in an interview.

At one point during a March court hearing, Judge Patterson chastised Mr. Vodicka for interrupting. "You're better served if you don't interrupt the judge," he said.

SMU wrote Mr. Vodicka a $450,000 check for his four units in December. He refuses to pick it up, saying the school's actions invalidated the condo sale.

Mr. Vodicka has sometimes represented himself before, in cases against clients for nonpayment.

Legal experts say it's not unusual for lawyers to take clients to court to get payment, but self-representation isn't usually advised.

"Part of a lawyer's job is to be more objective than the client can be about the merits of the client's case," said Charles Silver, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. The main advantage, he said, is it costs less.

That's why Mr. Vodicka said he's representing himself against SMU. He estimates his time and expenses at $500,000 and counting.

Mr. Vodicka has also encountered legal challenges on a personal level.

In 1997, Dallas police arrested and charged him with prostitution, alleging he solicited an undercover police officer. He was fined $500 and put on probation for 12 months. The charge was dismissed after he completed probation under a procedure called deferred adjudication.

Mr. Vodicka said that he didn't commit a crime and that he pleaded no contest. After considering the time and cost, he decided not to "fight a matter where it was her word against my word," he said. "The irony was I didn't even have any money with me" that night.

In 2002, Mr. Vodicka's first wife filed for divorce after almost nine years of marriage. At one point, he ran from a process server trying to serve him with papers.

In court records, the process server said that Mr. Vodicka "screamed at me that I will never serve him." Mr. Vodicka said in an interview with The Dallas Morning News that he shouldn't have run but that he didn't want a divorce.

The couple's divorce became final in 2004. His ex-wife didn't return several calls.

Mr. Vodicka remarried last summer. He still sees his two children, a 4-year-old girl and an 11-year-old boy, two to three times a week – more when their mother is traveling for her flight attendant job.

In 2003, the State Bar of Texas publicly reprimanded and fined Mr. Vodicka $600. He had been practicing law with a license that was suspended because he failed to pay a $200 state occupancy tax on time, according to bar records.

A bar spokesman called that type of infraction "serious," but Mr. Silver, the UT professor, said it pales in comparison with other offenses for which lawyers are punished. "It's different to steal $10,000 from a client than to be a couple months late paying a tax of $200," he said.

Mr. Vodicka said he had paid the tax a few weeks late and owed $12 in late fees, which he hadn't realized.

These days, he remains focused on the SMU case. "Last night I went to bed at 3:30 a.m. I read law until a quarter of 3," he said.

His supporters say his intensity gives him an edge to take on an institutional powerhouse like SMU.

One of Mr. Vodicka's condo tenants, Laura Perkins, said she's glad he's taking on the university. "I think that what they've done so far is just horrible," she said. "They should have paid these owners, these individual owners of these condominiums, the right amount of money. They just got off really, really cheap."

SMU could end all this by keeping the condos as condos, Mr. Vodicka said. Otherwise, he said, he'll keep fighting for the former tenants. He said he doesn't want any punitive damages for himself, just the $500,000 that he estimates his legal work is worth.

"All they have to do is pay us our attorney's fees," he said.

E-mail [email protected]

and [email protected]

[RGV Pony]

Interesting that Vodicka's 'home' is his office. Is the area not zoned residential? Somebody file a complaint!

[MrMustang1965]

Obviously, he has no understanding of real estate transactions. SMU paid a 'fair market price' for the condos last year. He chose not to pick up his check because - in my opinion - he's holding out for more money which he's not going to get. Move on, buddy. Move on.

[OC Mustang]

On the merit, or rather, the lack of merit, of his case vs. SMU....
SMU may very well use the area for the library should SMU get it.
But the idea that it was originally intended to be the library is just flat false. SMU wanted the land for no specific reason except that they wanted that land since at least 1991-92. The question at the time was not if, but when SMU had the requisite funds to buy out the tenants.
Phoenix & Raven Properties contemplated buying it in early to mid 1990s as the original idea for what is now the multi-family by Mockingbird Station. They didn't want to wait ten years to turn it. It was easier to go across the street. So Gary is upset...upset that he is not getting more money...upset that SMU is taking his <ahem> "home office". Fine.

But linking this to the library has only two objectives: buzz and more money. His "standing on principle" is self-serving, and therefore, not exactly "standing on principle".

Hey Gary, if you happen to frequent this site, I am officially calling you out. You are wrong, and you ought to take your money and move on.

[jtstang]

The $200 is an occupation tax, not an occupancy tax.

[MrMustang1965]

The $200 is an occupation tax, not an occupancy tax.

Good catch, jt! <applause>

[EastStang]

Any fool can go to the courthouse and file a lawsuit. They expect you to throw them some money to go away. Sometimes they get lucky and win and then the appellate courts take out their knives and filet them. This "case" probably alleges enough to survive for a few months. It gets the guy some publicity. In a year or so, when the courts get around to it, he'll lose and scream about the "fix being in". He'll appeal and the Court of Appeals will just laugh. Its all so predictable.

[SMU Football Blog]

His office is too messy to show reporters...right. And then walks them through a deserted kitchen and plays tunes in an abandoned ballroom. The guy doesn't live there. The guy doesn't work there. The guy is an a-hole and a spare.

[Water Pony]

As the saying goes, "if someone says it is not about money, it's about the money."

[LakeHighlandsPony]

Unleash the Dogs of war on him-Send in Stallion!!

[OC Mustang]

What if he is Stallion?!!!

[RE Tycoon]

:shock:
What if he is Stallion?!!!

You just blew my mind

[mrydel]

Noticed something today here in Arkansas Democrat Gazette. In the Pulaski County (Little Rock area) filings, it shows a divorce filing between Shannon Jacuzzi and Gary Vodicka. I am kind of curious if this has any connection to our favorite SMU property owner. The name can not be that common. Curious as to whether this may be an offspring or perhaps the man himself if an estranged spouse may have moved here.

[White Helmet]

Shannon Jacuzzi? What kind of porn was she in?

[MrMustang1965]

Noticed something today here in Arkansas Democrat Gazette. In the Pulaski County (Little Rock area) filings, it shows a divorce filing between Shannon Jacuzzi and Gary Vodicka. I am kind of curious if this has any connection to our favorite SMU property owner. The name can not be that common. Curious as to whether this may be an offspring or perhaps the man himself if an estranged spouse may have moved here.

from the above article:

"In 2002, Mr. Vodicka's first wife filed for divorce after almost nine years of marriage. At one point, he ran from a process server trying to serve him with papers.

In court records, the process server said that Mr. Vodicka "screamed at me that I will never serve him." Mr. Vodicka said in an interview with The Dallas Morning News that he shouldn't have run but that he didn't want a divorce.

The couple's divorce became final in 2004. His ex-wife didn't return several calls.

Mr. Vodicka remarried last summer. He still sees his two children, a 4-year-old girl and an 11-year-old boy, two to three times a week – more when their mother is traveling for her flight attendant job."

Hmmmm...interesting. Do some more investigating and keep us updated, mrydel!