Texas Supreme Court ruling sides with prolific donor
Jane Cull said she and her husband, who's 70, were devastated. They've claimed the house they bought from Perry for $233,730 in 1996 had structural and framing defects that eventually caused the home's appraised value to plummet to $41,000 by 2001..."All we ever wanted was a home with a good foundation so we could retire and enjoy life," Jane Cull told the Houston Chronicle in Saturday's editions. "We've tried in vain and we've worked with the builder and did everything we could to avoid the legal process."

Texas Supreme Court ruling sides with prolific donor

AUSTIN — A Texas Supreme Court decision that sided with the state's most prolific campaign contributor in overturning an $800,000 arbitration award to a suburban couple has critics renewing complaints of what they say is big money influencing elected judges.

Houston homebuilder Bob Perry, who has given millions of dollars to state and federal candidates, prevailed Friday after a 5-4 decision by the state's highest civil court in a case over a defective house.

The nine judges on the all-Republican panel, whose decision overturned two lower-court rulings, have each received contributions totaling more than $260,000 from members of Perry's family.

Anthony Holm, a spokesman for Perry, hailed the decision and denied that political contributions played any part, The Dallas Morning News reported in its Saturday editions.

Alex Winslow of Texas Watch, a nonprofit government watchdog group, said the decision reflects the high court's record of favoring businesses.

"After years of forcing consumers into a lopsided binding arbitration process, the court today carved out a special decision for the man who gives the court more campaign cash than any other individual in the state," Winslow said.

Bob and Jane Cull sued Perry Homes for refusing to make repairs to their Mansfield house in a legal dispute dating to 2000.

Perry Homes originally acquiesced to arbitration, according to the court record. After an arbiter awarded the couple $800,000, the homebuilder claimed the couple had waived their rights to arbitration and went to court.

A district and appeals court ruled against the homebuilder. But the Supreme Court ruled that the Culls potentially benefited by initially going to court under one set of rules, then seeking arbitration under another.

"They went through 14 months of trial actions at great expense to the court system, the taxpayers of Texas and the defendants. And literally four days prior to trial, they said now we want arbitration," said Holm, Perry's spokesman.

Jane Cull said she and her husband, who's 70, were devastated. They've claimed the house they bought from Perry for $233,730 in 1996 had structural and framing defects that eventually caused the home's appraised value to plummet to $41,000 by 2001.

"All we ever wanted was a home with a good foundation so we could retire and enjoy life," Jane Cull told the Houston Chronicle in Saturday's editions. "We've tried in vain and we've worked with the builder and did everything we could to avoid the legal process."

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/gen/ap/TX_Homebuilder_Suit.html