Texans won arbitration for defective house, but Perry refuses to pay
AUSTIN â A lawyer for a retirement-age couple in a long battle with homebuilder Bob Perry told the Texas Supreme Court on Tuesday that his clients followed the rules in winning an $800,000 arbiter's judgment for their defective house but the company has refused to pay. Attorney Thomas Michel said Perry Homes lost at arbitration and in the courts but is making a spurious appeal to the justices â all political favorites of Mr. Perry â in hopes of reversing a string of unfavorable rulings.
Lawyers for homebuilder, couple face off in high court
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
By Wayne Slater
AUSTIN â A lawyer for a retirement-age couple in a long battle with homebuilder Bob Perry told the Texas Supreme Court on Tuesday that his clients followed the rules in winning an $800,000 arbiter's judgment for their defective house but the company has refused to pay. Attorney Thomas Michel said Perry Homes lost at arbitration and in the courts but is making a spurious appeal to the justices â all political favorites of Mr. Perry â in hopes of reversing a string of unfavorable rulings.
Geoffrey Bracken, a lawyer for Perry Homes, said the dispute between the Houston homebuilder and Mansfield homeowners Bob and Jane Cull never should have gone to arbitration. He said the couple effectively waived their right to arbitration by first filing a lawsuit, then changing their minds and seeking arbitration before the case went to trial.
During arguments Tuesday, the justices quizzed both sides in the case, which has focused attention on how construction disputes can last for years without resolution and raised questions about possible influence of big-dollar campaign contributions.
Mr. Perry, the nation's most generous individual political donor, has given more than $340,000 to the nine justices, all Republicans, either directly or through related political committees.
The Culls sued in 2000 after being unable to get Perry Homes to repair their home. But with the prospects of a court fight, the couple decided to seek arbitration.
"The Culls are an elderly couple. This was their dream home and it has been virtually deemed valueless," Mr. Michel said. "They knew they were facing further delays."
Although the couple said they believed arbitration would end the matter, Perry Homes appealed after losing, claiming the process was unfair. After a district court and an appeals court ruled against the company, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether to uphold the arbiter's judgment.
Mr. Bracken said Perry Homes was hurt in the process because its lawyers had to prepare for trial and produce documents and depositions that wouldn't have been available to the Culls in arbitration. Mr. Michel said the documents would have been available in either venue.
At one point, Justice Harriet O'Neill asked Mr. Bracken why Perry Homes believed it had the right to choose either court or arbitration but the homeowners did not.
"Why hold the Culls to a different standard?" she said.
Mr. Bracken said the homebuilder never wanted to go to arbitration in the first place, but was compelled to by court rulings that it was now trying to reverse.
Homeowner Bob Perry is the nation's most generous individual political donor, including to Texas Supreme Court justices who heard his case Tuesday.
Outside the courtroom, Thomas Michel, attorney for the couple suing Mr. Perry, was asked whether he believed Mr. Perry's contributions might affect the outcome.
"I have every faith to believe that this court has the integrity, and has established the integrity in the past, to judge cases on the merits and not with regard to any political contributions," he said.
Geoffrey Bracken, a lawyer representing Perry Homes, declined to answer. "I have no comment on that," he said as he left the courthouse.
See This Article At: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-perry_21tex.ART.State.Edition1.44930f1.html |