Bush Library/Lawsuit
Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
-
SMU Football Blog
- PonyFans.com Legend
- Posts: 4418
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:44 pm
- Location: North Dallas, Texas
- Contact:
No. I think it is because the reporter thinks Vodicka is doing the Lord's work by fighting the mean, awful Bush Library. To not mention that the guy was ordered to pay attorneys' fees is either grossly negligent or intentional.MrMustang1965 wrote:Because the words 'University of Texas' were not mentioned.SMU Football Blog wrote:How the DMN can leave that out is mind-boggling.
BTW, do you think Vodicka goes to Court thinking he is going to win? And he's just in shock when he loses-he just incredulous and he puts his face in his hands and weeps?
"Man, I really thought I nailed that one. What am I doing wrong?"
-
Bergermeister
- PonyFans.com Super Legend
- Posts: 7132
- Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2002 3:01 am
- Location: University Park
The insight into the legal system and how the proceedings work is interesting and, in this case, intriguing. You guys have been right on the money in your assessments and outcomes. Thanks for following the case and sharing your knowledge with ponyfans. Good job.Eddie P wrote:I don't know about anybody else, but I really appreciate how blog and a few others have provided an ongoing narration of this case. Thank you.
-
SMU Football Blog
- PonyFans.com Legend
- Posts: 4418
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:44 pm
- Location: North Dallas, Texas
- Contact:
-
MrMustang1965
- PonyFans.com Super Legend
- Posts: 11161
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 3:01 am
- Location: Dallas,TX,USA
- Contact:
and now this...
By HOLLY K. HACKER / The Dallas Morning News
Gary Vodicka has doggedly pursued a lawsuit against Southern Methodist University as it competes for the Bush presidential library, refusing to give up or give in.
But now his wife is threatening to give up on their marriage.
Mr. Vodicka's wife, Shannon Jacuzzi, said Tuesday that she wants no part of the case and worries SMU will come after her for legal fees. And to protect herself, she said, she filed for divorce over the summer.
"I am in the crossfire. I just want out," she told The Dallas Morning News. Ms. Jacuzzi, a trained mediator, said she also wishes the two sides would settle the suit over a condominium complex near SMU.
"It's a testosterone standoff. I've never seen the likes of this," she said.
Mr. Vodicka, a lawyer, said that SMU has not asked his wife for any legal fees and that she shouldn't worry. He said that he will agree to the divorce and that difficulties in their marriage "stem a whole lot deeper ... than just the SMU case."
Mr. Vodicka sued SMU last year over the university's purchase of University Gardens condos, where he lives. The suit accuses SMU of forcing residents out so it could use the land for the George W. Bush Presidential Library.
SMU officials deny the charges and say they legally obtained the complex. They have said part of the library could go on the condo site, should SMU win.
Mr. Vodicka bought four units at University Gardens years ago and still lives in one. Ms. Jacuzzi lives in Arkansas with her children from a previous marriage. They married in July 2005, two weeks before Mr. Vodicka sued SMU. They've had a long-distance marriage the whole time.
SMU officials consider Mr. Vodicka a squatter because he refuses to leave his condo. In January, SMU sued Ms. Jacuzzi because, as Mr. Vodicka's spouse, she may claim a legal interest in the condo unit.
Last week, a federal bankruptcy judge ordered Mr. Vodicka to pay some of SMU's legal fees. Mr. Vodicka had filed for bankruptcy, saying he wanted his case against SMU moved to bankruptcy court.
Mr. Vodicka said he was seeking an impartial judge; SMU attorneys said he was trying to delay the case. A judge granted SMU's request to send the case back to state court, where it started. The judge also said people should not use bankruptcy court to appeal a state court's actions.
Ms. Jacuzzi, 40, said she tried to talk with SMU about removing her from the case, or at least promising not to seek legal fees from her.
But SMU officials declined a meeting. "She's represented by counsel, so it's not proper for us to do that," said Brad Cheves, a vice president.
Ms. Jacuzzi's counsel? Mr. Vodicka. But she said she's looking for a new lawyer.
"I don't want to harm Gary, but I have to protect myself and my three children," she said.
By HOLLY K. HACKER / The Dallas Morning News
Gary Vodicka has doggedly pursued a lawsuit against Southern Methodist University as it competes for the Bush presidential library, refusing to give up or give in.
But now his wife is threatening to give up on their marriage.
Mr. Vodicka's wife, Shannon Jacuzzi, said Tuesday that she wants no part of the case and worries SMU will come after her for legal fees. And to protect herself, she said, she filed for divorce over the summer.
"I am in the crossfire. I just want out," she told The Dallas Morning News. Ms. Jacuzzi, a trained mediator, said she also wishes the two sides would settle the suit over a condominium complex near SMU.
"It's a testosterone standoff. I've never seen the likes of this," she said.
Mr. Vodicka, a lawyer, said that SMU has not asked his wife for any legal fees and that she shouldn't worry. He said that he will agree to the divorce and that difficulties in their marriage "stem a whole lot deeper ... than just the SMU case."
Mr. Vodicka sued SMU last year over the university's purchase of University Gardens condos, where he lives. The suit accuses SMU of forcing residents out so it could use the land for the George W. Bush Presidential Library.
SMU officials deny the charges and say they legally obtained the complex. They have said part of the library could go on the condo site, should SMU win.
Mr. Vodicka bought four units at University Gardens years ago and still lives in one. Ms. Jacuzzi lives in Arkansas with her children from a previous marriage. They married in July 2005, two weeks before Mr. Vodicka sued SMU. They've had a long-distance marriage the whole time.
SMU officials consider Mr. Vodicka a squatter because he refuses to leave his condo. In January, SMU sued Ms. Jacuzzi because, as Mr. Vodicka's spouse, she may claim a legal interest in the condo unit.
Last week, a federal bankruptcy judge ordered Mr. Vodicka to pay some of SMU's legal fees. Mr. Vodicka had filed for bankruptcy, saying he wanted his case against SMU moved to bankruptcy court.
Mr. Vodicka said he was seeking an impartial judge; SMU attorneys said he was trying to delay the case. A judge granted SMU's request to send the case back to state court, where it started. The judge also said people should not use bankruptcy court to appeal a state court's actions.
Ms. Jacuzzi, 40, said she tried to talk with SMU about removing her from the case, or at least promising not to seek legal fees from her.
But SMU officials declined a meeting. "She's represented by counsel, so it's not proper for us to do that," said Brad Cheves, a vice president.
Ms. Jacuzzi's counsel? Mr. Vodicka. But she said she's looking for a new lawyer.
"I don't want to harm Gary, but I have to protect myself and my three children," she said.
-
SMU Football Blog
- PonyFans.com Legend
- Posts: 4418
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:44 pm
- Location: North Dallas, Texas
- Contact:
-
Peruna2001
- All-American
- Posts: 677
- Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 4:01 am
- Location: Dallas, TX
-
SMU Football Blog
- PonyFans.com Legend
- Posts: 4418
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:44 pm
- Location: North Dallas, Texas
- Contact:
DALLAS, TEXAS - OCTOBER 5, 2006 - 9:00 A.M.
(Excerpt of proceedings begins at 12:18 p.m.)
THE COURT: The Court’s ruling will be as follows. This ruling applies to the motion to remand and abstain, as well as the motion for relief from the automatic stay.
The Court has taken into account the previous ruling of the Court and the proceedings, because both parties before the Court today were before the Court then, and Mr. Jetton testified that Mr. Vodicka assisted him in his removal the first time.
The matter before this Court has disturbed me since I heard the motion to lift stay for Judge Houser. The underlying lawsuit has been pending in state court for more than a year. It involves issues which arise wholly under state law. This Court would have no jurisdiction, absent the bankruptcy case.
The case is at the summary judgment stage in state court. The primary reasons given for the removal are that the Plaintiff or Debtor is being treated unfairly by the state court. The Plaintiff/Debtor has taken up these issues with the state court and has been unsuccessful to date. This Court does not serve as an appeals court in those matters, or a forum to second-guess the state court.
The Plaintiff/Debtor also believes that this Court could decide these matters more quickly than the state court. This position is somewhat curious to me, because in the earlier removal the Plaintiff/Debtor filed a motion with this Court to withdraw the case to the United States District Court for trial.
The matters in this lawsuit are not core matters. Therefore, if this Court tried the case in the year and one-half the Plaintiff estimates as the time when trial would occur, it would then necessarily be tried a second time before the United States District Court. In my most recent appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the time periods were about two years for the Circuit Court to consider a ruling of the District Court. Therefore, a trial by this Court or the District Court probably would not lead to finality any quicker than it would in state court.
There are also equitable considerations present this morning.
Number one, the Plaintiff chose to sue the Defendant in state court.
Number two, the Plaintiff/Debtor has been engaged in gamesmanship with his tenants by transferring interests and then coaching them to remove this case to this Court.
Number three, this is the second or third time around. At the motion to lift stay, I tried to advise the parties that the matter was better heard before the state court and that it would not be appropriate to bring before the federal court.
Number four, this matter has now been removed twice on the eve of hearings before the state court, which is, again, Debtor’s choice of forum.
Number five, this record, Mr. Vodicka’s undisputed testimony is that he wants this lawsuit removed to get it out of Judge Patterson’s court. This is not a proper reason for removal.
Number six, this removal is improper.
For these reasons, the motion to remand and abstain and the motion to lift stay will be granted.
Because this is the second time this matter was removed, and Mr. Vodicka has had a hand in both removals, and for the reasons stated on the record, I will award attorney’s fees and costs against the Debtor. SMU shall file with this Court a statement of fees and expenses within seven days. The Debtor may review and respond to such statement within seven more days, and the Court will rule on the pleadings.
I further direct SMU to file with the state court after remand and serve on all parties to the lawsuit a copy of this ruling and the order which will be entered by the Court based on this ruling. I want to place all the other parties to the lawsuit on notice that if they remove the action and it is remanded by this Court, I intend to impose fees and costs and sanctions on the removing party -- if I do remand it -- and on counsel.
-
aus10fromhous10
- Junior Varsity
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 3:42 pm
- Location: DFW
The Daily Campus' Story about Vodicka's wife
By Mark Norris
Managing Editor
The Daily Campus
Gary Vodicka's wife has dismissed him as her attorney in the University Gardens case and is seeking new representation or will represent herself in court, she said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Campus.
Shannon Jacuzzi also revealed some of the figures being tossed back and forth in mediation between SMU and Vodicka in mediation for the UG case.
According to Jacuzzi, SMU offered Vodicka $450,000 in the first round of mediation.
Vodicka countered with $3.7 million.
SMU did not counter-offer.
The most recent round of mediation Vodicka was offered $1 million and refused the amount. Jacuzzi said he his now seeking between $10 and $20 million from the school.
"From a mediator's point of view, this entire situation is senseless," Jacuzzi said.
She also revealed that at one point during the case, Vodicka was able to obtain out-of-print Civil War history books from SMU legal counsel in exchange for court filings.
"Imagine that SMU and Gary went to mediation early on " said Jacuzzi. "By now, with all the attorney fees SMU is paying � and with all the time spent, heartache and publicity for all, wouldn't it have been better for the two sides to 'compromise' and settle?"
The next phase of the University Gardens case is Thursday, when the court will hear on the dismissal of Vodicka's bankruptcy case.
There is another mediation session scheduled for Friday, but Jacuzzi said both sides have dug too deep to be open to mediation anymore.
Jacuzzi said Vodicka has not talked to her in the past 60 days and the only way she has been able to get a hold of him is by calling his phone from and different number so her call won't get screened.
She added that Vodicka has not sent her any copies of the case documents.
"The only way I've been able to keep up with the case is by reading smudailycampus.com," Jacuzzi said. "By not talking to me he's violating his legal ethics codes by not zealously representing me."
Vodicka disagreed, saying he has communicated with Jacuzzi multiple times - including three times in the past month with her divorce lawyer.
Jacuzzi said she first heard of Vodicka's plans to file for bankruptcy in March.
She became concerned because Vodicka paid off her Little Rock home with $198,000 cash, and she didn't want the house to become part of the legal proceedings.
She repaid him June 15 and also removed her name from the joint bank accounts the two had in both states.
Jacuzzi said she has tried to encourage mediation between the two sides in the case, but that nothing has come of her recommendations.
In a letter dated Oct. 9 to SMU legal counsel John McElhaney, Jacuzzi said she is willing to sign quitclaim deeds to end her involvement in the case.
"If anything else, I need some sort of contract with SMU to indemnify and hold me harmless for an attorney fees or costs," she wrote.
Vodicka said that Jacuzzi is "running scared," and that part of the divorce agreement has him representing her at no cost for the remainder of the case.
"She keeps flip-flopping�she seems emotionally distraught and unstable," Vodicka said.
Jacuzzi and Vodicka are in the middle of divorce proceedings. The two have been married a little more than a year, but were unable to make the long-distance relationship work.
Jacuzzi lives in Little Rock, Ark., with her three children and Vodicka lives in his University Gardens condominium.
Jacuzzi has been a part of the University Gardens case since Jan. 31 when she was sued by SMU.
She said she remained out of the spotlight by choice, but felt she had to talk to the media after last week's ruling in a federal bankruptcy court that assessed court and attorney fees to Vodicka.
Jacuzzi asked to be removed from the case in February but SMU lawyers have refused, citing Texas homestead laws where she has a stake to the property in contention.
She says her only goal in going public is to "get out of this case as fast as I can and not have to pay any attorneys fees."
"I've got three kids. I'm the only one who will be legitimately bankrupt if this goes through," Jacuzzi said.
Vodicka has been representing Jacuzzi in court proceedings, and she said she trusted him to make the correct choices for her.
But over the summer the relationship between the two deteriorated.
"We fell in love and thought it could work, but it didn't turn out," Vodicka said.
The two met through a mutual friend and shared similar interests in history.
She said the two dated and traveled for a little less than a year before getting married in a Highland Park United Methodist Church chapel July 30, 2005.
By Mark Norris
Managing Editor
The Daily Campus
Gary Vodicka's wife has dismissed him as her attorney in the University Gardens case and is seeking new representation or will represent herself in court, she said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Campus.
Shannon Jacuzzi also revealed some of the figures being tossed back and forth in mediation between SMU and Vodicka in mediation for the UG case.
According to Jacuzzi, SMU offered Vodicka $450,000 in the first round of mediation.
Vodicka countered with $3.7 million.
SMU did not counter-offer.
The most recent round of mediation Vodicka was offered $1 million and refused the amount. Jacuzzi said he his now seeking between $10 and $20 million from the school.
"From a mediator's point of view, this entire situation is senseless," Jacuzzi said.
She also revealed that at one point during the case, Vodicka was able to obtain out-of-print Civil War history books from SMU legal counsel in exchange for court filings.
"Imagine that SMU and Gary went to mediation early on " said Jacuzzi. "By now, with all the attorney fees SMU is paying � and with all the time spent, heartache and publicity for all, wouldn't it have been better for the two sides to 'compromise' and settle?"
The next phase of the University Gardens case is Thursday, when the court will hear on the dismissal of Vodicka's bankruptcy case.
There is another mediation session scheduled for Friday, but Jacuzzi said both sides have dug too deep to be open to mediation anymore.
Jacuzzi said Vodicka has not talked to her in the past 60 days and the only way she has been able to get a hold of him is by calling his phone from and different number so her call won't get screened.
She added that Vodicka has not sent her any copies of the case documents.
"The only way I've been able to keep up with the case is by reading smudailycampus.com," Jacuzzi said. "By not talking to me he's violating his legal ethics codes by not zealously representing me."
Vodicka disagreed, saying he has communicated with Jacuzzi multiple times - including three times in the past month with her divorce lawyer.
Jacuzzi said she first heard of Vodicka's plans to file for bankruptcy in March.
She became concerned because Vodicka paid off her Little Rock home with $198,000 cash, and she didn't want the house to become part of the legal proceedings.
She repaid him June 15 and also removed her name from the joint bank accounts the two had in both states.
Jacuzzi said she has tried to encourage mediation between the two sides in the case, but that nothing has come of her recommendations.
In a letter dated Oct. 9 to SMU legal counsel John McElhaney, Jacuzzi said she is willing to sign quitclaim deeds to end her involvement in the case.
"If anything else, I need some sort of contract with SMU to indemnify and hold me harmless for an attorney fees or costs," she wrote.
Vodicka said that Jacuzzi is "running scared," and that part of the divorce agreement has him representing her at no cost for the remainder of the case.
"She keeps flip-flopping�she seems emotionally distraught and unstable," Vodicka said.
Jacuzzi and Vodicka are in the middle of divorce proceedings. The two have been married a little more than a year, but were unable to make the long-distance relationship work.
Jacuzzi lives in Little Rock, Ark., with her three children and Vodicka lives in his University Gardens condominium.
Jacuzzi has been a part of the University Gardens case since Jan. 31 when she was sued by SMU.
She said she remained out of the spotlight by choice, but felt she had to talk to the media after last week's ruling in a federal bankruptcy court that assessed court and attorney fees to Vodicka.
Jacuzzi asked to be removed from the case in February but SMU lawyers have refused, citing Texas homestead laws where she has a stake to the property in contention.
She says her only goal in going public is to "get out of this case as fast as I can and not have to pay any attorneys fees."
"I've got three kids. I'm the only one who will be legitimately bankrupt if this goes through," Jacuzzi said.
Vodicka has been representing Jacuzzi in court proceedings, and she said she trusted him to make the correct choices for her.
But over the summer the relationship between the two deteriorated.
"We fell in love and thought it could work, but it didn't turn out," Vodicka said.
The two met through a mutual friend and shared similar interests in history.
She said the two dated and traveled for a little less than a year before getting married in a Highland Park United Methodist Church chapel July 30, 2005.
-
SMU Football Blog
- PonyFans.com Legend
- Posts: 4418
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:44 pm
- Location: North Dallas, Texas
- Contact:
-
mustangbill67
- PonyFans.com Legend
- Posts: 3089
- Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:31 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
-
smu diamond m
- PonyFans.com Legend
- Posts: 4951
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:21 pm
- Location: High on the Hilltop
- Contact:
This is getting to April Fools like dimensions. Let me get this straight if I can. The guy has a wife of one year named Jacuzzi who lives in Arkansas and they apparently have never lived under the same roof. They are now getting divorced. He has been offered $1 Million dollars and turned it down. He has been sanctioned once already and will get sanctioned again. Because he's filed a separate bankruptcy, she wants someone else to represent her (good move since she admitted in the article that she got title to her condo) which in bankruptcy law might be considered a preference. And she's mad at SMU for not giving in and spending a ton of money on attorney's fees. I've been through several mediations and all of them have ended in settlement because the parties sooner or later recognize that in the end its about $$$$.