Bush Library Up In the Air- 5th Circuit tosses out judgment

[Horse Hockey]

Essentially all Texas judges are elected. And, they serve 6 year terms. There was an election in 2006 that resulted in those new Dallas county district court judges not having to stand from re-election until 2012. Judge Hoffman, who will get the title issue if the district court remands, was one of those judges and isn't going to be replaced by an election any time soon.

It is hair-splitting to anyone other than lawyers, but jurisdiction is determined at the time a suit arrives in federal court. In this case when the case was removed to federal court it contained a RICO claim that is based on a federal statute, so there was "federal question" jurisdiction over that claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims which included the title issue.

"Juridsdiction," once acquired, cannot be lost by subsequent events. However, a federal court has the discretion to decline to excercise its supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. The Fifith Circuit opinion sets out the facts as it sees them relating to the factors to consider in deciding whether to remand. They are essentially those that were mentioned yesterday.

The point is that the Fifth Circuit had jurisdiction to rule on the merits, but declined chosing rather to vacate the favorable judgment and send it back to the federal district court to let it decide whether it wants to exercise its discretion to remand to state court.

There are very few bases upon which a Texas court can throw out (dismiss) a case. To avoid a trial, a party can seek a summary judgment, which Peruna did in federal court on the title issue. Since the Fifth Circuit vacated the summary judgment in favor of Peruna, if the federal district court remands to state court, the title issue will either be addressed by summary judgment in state court or will go to the jury in the trial.

The pleadings filed by Vodicka and Tafel in the federal distirct court [available on PacerNet] raised flaws in the procedure used to trigger the Association's authority to sell the property (the question of whether of one owner with ownership of a super majority of the units could vote the property obsolete that jtstang alludes to), the variance in the property description in the Assoc.'s deed to Peruna and those in the deeds that Vodicka was given to acquire the property and breach of fiduciary duty by the Association, Peruna and the board members as a basis for a constructive trust over the property (meaning equitable ownership would still be in Vodicka). Vodicka also asserted a state law legal right to make an election to surrender back the portion of the purchase price Peruna paid into escrow for "his" property so that he gets to keep his property.

Lots of issues to be considered.

[Nacho]

Yawn. The library is a done deal.

[ponyboy]

How is that more interesting than owning a cube of air sitting on the ground?

Because dirt is different from air.