PonyFans.com

jtstang wrote:Not at all, just saying that there was a reason the case settled in the first place, that being that somebody for SMU thought there was an exposure.

Either that or it was just getting to be a money pit...no one but the attorneys getting rich...imagine that.

Nothing happens where the lawyers don't make money, PK.

Judge will probably end up enforcing the Settlement Agreement in the spirit of the original agreement. Settlement is an enforceable contract-you can't just back out nor can you add onerous additional clauses or covenants. Isn't there a hearing Friday where both sides are asking that the settlement agreement be enforced

From what I read in the paper, this is not Vodica, but is the other plantiff. If Vodica accepted the settlement, wouldn't that pretty much tip the scale in SMU' s favor against this latest claim?

My feeling is Vodica was a lawyer and his legal costs were negligible while the other party has legal fees to pay and suddenly realized his net pay is a lot less that expected.

Battle over land slated for Bush library at SMU heads back to court 11:14 AM CT

11:15 AM CDT on Friday, August 28, 2009

By LORI STAHL / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]

Any hope that the lawsuit against SMU would finally end - which was promised just last month - faded Friday when both sides went on the attack in court.

SMU lawyers said the lawsuit now amounts to "extortion.’’ But a lawyer for one of the former condominium owners said SMU has used "mob tactics’’ and acted like the "800 pound gorilla’’ in negotiations.

Both sides were in court to see whether state District Judge Martin Hoffman would enforce the terms of a now-controversial settlement agreement that the parties previously said would end the four year old case.

But Hoffman, citing a recent Dallas appeals court case, said he could not enforce a settlement unless both sides agreed. They did not. Hoffman then said he would consider motions for summary judgment on Sept. 18.

"We’re trying to get this fraudulent lawsuit settled,’’ said attorney Lisa Blue, who is representing SMU.

Larry Friedman, who represents former condo owners Dr. Robert Tafel, said "We’d like to get the case settled on the terms we agreed to. They want more.’’

"It’s him that wants more,’’ Blue replied.

Judge Hoffman said "If I could, I would decide this today. ‘’

State Sen. Royce West, who was added to Tafel’s legal team but could not previously participate while the Texas Legislature was in session, was in court Friday. He and lawyers for all sides met in Hoffman’s chambers prior to the session in open court.

The case has been in court since 2005. Tafel and condo owner Gary Vodicka sued SMU, saying it illegally acquired the condo complex to expand the campus for the George W. Bush Presidential Library at SMU. University officials say their transactions were legal.

The complex has been razed and Bush Foundation officials say it will be part of the library grounds

I've been wondering this for a while now. This case used to be in Marty Lowy's court. How did it get transferred to Hoffman, did he recuse himself?

jtstang wrote:I've been wondering this for a while now. This case used to be in Marty Lowy's court. How did it get transferred to Hoffman, did he recuse himself?

Lowy probably got tired of listening to Vodicka whine and had the case transfered.

Both sides did agree when they signed the settlement:

§ 154.071. EFFECT OF WRITTEN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. (a)
If the parties reach a settlement and execute a written agreement
disposing of the dispute, the agreement is enforceable in the same
manner as any other written contract.
(b) The court in its discretion may incorporate the terms of
the agreement in the court's final decree disposing of the case.
(c) A settlement agreement does not affect an outstanding
court order unless the terms of the agreement are incorporated into
a subsequent decree.

Their Rule 11 agreement probably called for a formal agreement to be entered into, which would then be the subject of this dispute, I reckon.

jtstang wrote:Their Rule 11 agreement probably called for a formal agreement to be entered into, which would then be the subject of this dispute, I reckon.

The use of the last word makes me think you are a small town, country lawyer that comes into court in a seersucker suit with a straw hat

smupony94 wrote:

jtstang wrote:Their Rule 11 agreement probably called for a formal agreement to be entered into, which would then be the subject of this dispute, I reckon.

The use of the last word makes me think you are a small town, country lawyer that comes into court in a seersucker suit with a straw hat

It is like you have known him forever.

smupony94 wrote:Battle over land slated for Bush library at SMU heads back to court 11:14 AM CT

11:15 AM CDT on Friday, August 28, 2009

By LORI STAHL / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]

Any hope that the lawsuit against SMU would finally end - which was promised just last month - faded Friday when both sides went on the attack in court.

SMU lawyers said the lawsuit now amounts to "extortion.’’ But a lawyer for one of the former condominium owners said SMU has used "mob tactics’’ and acted like the "800 pound gorilla’’ in negotiations.

Both sides were in court to see whether state District Judge Martin Hoffman would enforce the terms of a now-controversial settlement agreement that the parties previously said would end the four year old case.

But Hoffman, citing a recent Dallas appeals court case, said he could not enforce a settlement unless both sides agreed. They did not. Hoffman then said he would consider motions for summary judgment on Sept. 18.

"We’re trying to get this fraudulent lawsuit settled,’’ said attorney Lisa Blue, who is representing SMU.

Larry Friedman, who represents former condo owners Dr. Robert Tafel, said "We’d like to get the case settled on the terms we agreed to. They want more.’’

"It’s him that wants more,’’ Blue replied.

Judge Hoffman said "If I could, I would decide this today. ‘’

State Sen. Royce West, who was added to Tafel’s legal team but could not previously participate while the Texas Legislature was in session, was in court Friday. He and lawyers for all sides met in Hoffman’s chambers prior to the session in open court.

The case has been in court since 2005. Tafel and condo owner Gary Vodicka sued SMU, saying it illegally acquired the condo complex to expand the campus for the George W. Bush Presidential Library at SMU. University officials say their transactions were legal.

The complex has been razed and Bush Foundation officials say it will be part of the library grounds

The thing that makes me sick about this case is that (at least from what the DMN is reporting) both sides have nothing better to say than "HE SAID THIS!" "SHE SAID THAT!"

It seems to me like if either side had any substantive argument, it would have come out.

Stallion and jt, your take?

That's typically what you get when there is a dispute about a settlement agreement. The substantive arguments from the underlying case have been well documented.

jtstang wrote:That's typically what you get when there is a dispute about a settlement agreement. The substantive arguments from the underlying case have been well documented.

I understand that, but it would have seemed like someone would have at least brought in what they believe they agreed to. If they did, I see no report of such.

Look back to the article. Tafel says he did not agree to the entry of a judgment adjudicating title and says SMU did not ask for that until after a title company insisted on it after the agreement in principle. He therefore wants more money for the agreed judgment.