Speaking of lawsuits

[TheCalvinator24]

Got the ruling from the Judge on a civil bench trial for which I was hired about 16 hours before it commenced.

Total victory for my client. I'll give more details when I'm not typing on an iPhone.

[TheCalvinator24]

On Wednesday, May 11th, I met with one of what would turn out to be my clients, a husband and wife, who were being sued by their neighbors for trespassing on the neighbors' properties. The trial was scheduled to start at 9 a.m. on Thursday May 12th.

The parties all own property abutting a non-navigable lake (this is a legal term, it doesn't mean a boat can't float on it). Normally, abutting property owners have joint ownership of the lake, but in this case, the guy who split up the lots actually drew the property lines out into the water, so according to Texas case law, that means each owner actually owns that portion of the lake bed and has the right of use of the surface of the lake above his portion of the lake bed. So, in the absence of something else, each property owner would be within his rights to exclude all others from coming onto his portion of the lake.

Parties had lived in relative peace for about 5 years, and then something happened to make the neighbors mad at my clients. The properties had actually been owned by the parties for about 5 years before anybody built a home there. So, almost 10 years had passed since the parties had purchased the properties and the trouble started.

My clients had been water skiing on the lake (with the permission of the prior owner who owned all the land abutting the lake) before they even purchased their lot. When they bought, they specifically were seeking a lake upon which they could water ski. They continued water skiing on the lake for the entire 10 years before any complaints were made. At that point in 2005, the three neighbors all signed a letter informing my clients that motorized vehicles (i.e., ski boats and jet skis) would no longer be permitted on "their" portions of the lake. The letter did not purport to limit my clients' use of the entire lake for other purposes.

Neighbors filed suit in 2010 asking for an injunction to order my clients to stay off their parts of the lake entirely on the grounds that my clients' use constituted a trespass.

I was stuck with the really poorly drawn Deeds and Covenants that had been executed in 1995. The only hope was a provision in the Covenants that stated that a ski course may be established on the lake and that when the ski course was in use, it shall be used on a rotation basis. I would have argued the legal defense of Laches, but because my clients had initially filed their own Answer in the case, and I didn't have time to file an Amended Answer before trial, I couldn't because that is an affirmative defense, which must be pled.

So, I go into the trial with only one hope: Convince the Judge that this poorly drafted Covenant was sufficient to create a mutual easement giving all abutting owners the right to use the entire surface of the lake. The original seller did testify on our behalf that that was, in fact, his intent when he sold the lots.

Got the ruling from the Judge today, and he concluded my argument was sound, and denied the Plaintiffs' requested relief and held that there does exist a covenant running with the land giving all owners the right to use the entire surface of the lake for recreational purposes.

Plaintiffs paid their attorney about $13,000. My clients haven't paid me, yet (because the husband was out of work for 4 months because of an injury), but with the favorable ruling, I am optimistic that I will see my money eventually.

[TheCalvinator24]

The trial went a 1/2 day on each of 3 days: May 12, 19, & 20.

[Bob78164]

Parties had lived in relative peace for about 5 years, and then something happened to make the neighbors mad at my clients. The properties had actually been owned by the parties for about 5 years before anybody built a home there. So, almost 10 years had passed since the parties had purchased the properties and the trouble started.

In California that would be long enough to create a prescriptive easement. (That's the equivalent of adverse possession, but for easements rather than fee title.) I take it that the prescriptive period in Texas is longer than 10 years. --Bob

[TheCalvinator24]

Parties had lived in relative peace for about 5 years, and then something happened to make the neighbors mad at my clients. The properties had actually been owned by the parties for about 5 years before anybody built a home there. So, almost 10 years had passed since the parties had purchased the properties and the trouble started.

In California that would be long enough to create a prescriptive easement. (That's the equivalent of adverse possession, but for easements rather than fee title.) I take it that the prescriptive period in Texas is longer than 10 years. --Bob

Would have had a problem with showing adverse use with no complaint until 2005, so the Plaintiffs could have claimed that the prior use was under a License.

Also, I believe that would also have had to have been pled prior to my getting in the case.

Had I been in from the start, I certainly would have thrown it in.

[peacock2121]

Congratulations!

Your first case is a win!!!!

Can you frame the judgement like people frame their first dollar? Or, is that totally uncool?

[littlebeast13]

Congratulations!

Your first case is a win!!!!

Can you frame the judgement like people frame their first dollar? Or, is that totally uncool?

Maybe a water-skiing party is in order.....

lb13

[Queen Fantine VIII]

Congratulations!

Your first case is a win!!!!

Can you frame the judgement like people frame their first dollar? Or, is that totally uncool?

Maybe a water-skiing party is in order.....

lb13

Bring your tiara!!!1

[smilergrogan]

Can you frame the judgement like people frame their first dollar? Or, is that totally uncool?

He's a former prosecutor, right? I bet he knows all about framing.

[peacock2121]

Can you frame the judgement like people frame their first dollar? Or, is that totally uncool?

He's a former prosecutor, right? I bet he knows all about framing.

ouch

[TheCalvinator24]

Can you frame the judgement like people frame their first dollar? Or, is that totally uncool?

He's a former prosecutor, right? I bet he knows all about framing.

I'm going to assume that this was a pathetic attempt at humor, and that you aren't just a total ass.

[MarleysGh0st]

IANAL, so I don't understand all the technical jargon, but I do have one question. Is this a man-made lake that was previously private property as dry land? Here in New York, at least for some of the larger lakes, the shoreline may be private property but the lake itself is public property.

For instance, there is a salt mine half a mile below Cayuga Lake. The reason the mine is dug in that peculiar location is that they can lease the mineral rights from the state, rather than dealing with all the private property owners onshore.

[tlynn78]

Congrats, Cal! That was very brave of you to take on a case on such short notice. Did you get a judge who's not big on continuances?

t.

[SportsFan68]

Plaintiffs paid their attorney about $13,000. My clients haven't paid me, yet (because the husband was out of work for 4 months because of an injury), but with the favorable ruling, I am optimistic that I will see my money eventually.

Good grief, Cal. These people own property on a private lake. Something is rotten in the state of Texas if they can't afford to pay their attorney fees.

[smilergrogan]

Can you frame the judgement like people frame their first dollar? Or, is that totally uncool?

He's a former prosecutor, right? I bet he knows all about framing.

I'm going to assume that this was a pathetic attempt at humor, and that you aren't just a total ass.

Sorry I should have known better than to try to be the first person in history to make a lawyer joke. And everybody says I'm at most a partial ass.

[silverscreenselect]

Plaintiffs paid their attorney about $13,000. My clients haven't paid me, yet (because the husband was out of work for 4 months because of an injury), but with the favorable ruling, I am optimistic that I will see my money eventually.

They have a lake house where they go water skiing with ski boats and jet skis, but they can't afford to hire an attorney.

The one thing I learned, the hard way, from my own efforts at a practice was that people can come up with all sorts of reasons not to pay attorneys. You probably have the time to invest in cases like this now, but I hope you can parlay this into some clients who will pay in advance or otherwise guarantee you payment.

And congrats on your first win. That's a good feeling.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Plaintiffs paid their attorney about $13,000. My clients haven't paid me, yet (because the husband was out of work for 4 months because of an injury), but with the favorable ruling, I am optimistic that I will see my money eventually.

Good grief, Cal. These people own property on a private lake. Something is rotten in the state of Texas if they can't afford to pay their attorney fees.

ROFLMAO

[peacock2121]

Plaintiffs paid their attorney about $13,000. My clients haven't paid me, yet (because the husband was out of work for 4 months because of an injury), but with the favorable ruling, I am optimistic that I will see my money eventually.

Good grief, Cal. These people own property on a private lake. Something is rotten in the state of Texas if they can't afford to pay their attorney fees.

ROFLMAO

Must be a lawyer thing.

[peacock2121]

He's a former prosecutor, right? I bet he knows all about framing.

I'm going to assume that this was a pathetic attempt at humor, and that you aren't just a total ass.

Sorry I should have known better than to try to be the first person in history to make a lawyer joke. And everybody says I'm at most a partial ass.

Try a politician joke next.

sprots loves those.

[smilergrogan]

Try a politician joke next.

sprots loves those.

I think I'll just stick to knock knock. Any Avon ladies or Jehovah's Witnesses here?

[peacock2121]

Try a politician joke next.

sprots loves those.

I think I'll just stick to knock knock. Any Avon ladies or Jehovah's Witnesses here?

I wouldn't be surprised.

[geoffil]

Way to go. How does a case get ruled on by a judge before the trial starts? What type of damages was the plaintiff requesting? It seems really silly to sue over something that really didn't harm the neighbor in any way. I bet their lawyer said "you have a great case. Now pay me a $10,000 retainer." You were on the right side to help them when they didn't have the resources to pay now. We need more lawyers that care about the case, not just the money. How many hearings and motions did this take?

[TheCalvinator24]

Way to go. How does a case get ruled on by a judge before the trial starts? What type of damages was the plaintiff requesting? It seems really silly to sue over something that really didn't harm the neighbor in any way. I bet their lawyer said "you have a great case. Now pay me a $10,000 retainer." You were on the right side to help them when they didn't have the resources to pay now. We need more lawyers that care about the case, not just the money. How many hearings and motions did this take?

We had 3 half days of trial, and then the Judge took about a week and a half before he ruled.

I think the Plaintiffs did have a good case. My defense was just better.

[silverscreenselect]

Way to go. How does a case get ruled on by a judge before the trial starts? What type of damages was the plaintiff requesting? It seems really silly to sue over something that really didn't harm the neighbor in any way. I bet their lawyer said "you have a great case. Now pay me a $10,000 retainer." You were on the right side to help them when they didn't have the resources to pay now. We need more lawyers that care about the case, not just the money. How many hearings and motions did this take?

From the way Cal described the case, the plaintiffs were seeking an injunction... an order prohibiting Cal's clients from water skiing on the lake. Normally, there wouldn't be any damages involved unless the injunction was granted and then ignored by Cal's clients, in which case, the plaintiffs could try to have them held in contempt.

[Bob Juch]

Way to go. How does a case get ruled on by a judge before the trial starts? What type of damages was the plaintiff requesting? It seems really silly to sue over something that really didn't harm the neighbor in any way. I bet their lawyer said "you have a great case. Now pay me a $10,000 retainer." You were on the right side to help them when they didn't have the resources to pay now. We need more lawyers that care about the case, not just the money. How many hearings and motions did this take?

I'm sure the neighbors were "harmed" by the noise of the boat engine. However it was clear that water-skiing was a provision of the deeds' covenants. The covenants were so poorly written that the specifics were uncertain. Since the neighbors were trying to prevent any water-skiing at all, they did not have much of a case. They should have expected water-skiing on the lake when they bought their properties.

I'm glad my pond is too small for anything bigger than a paddle boat.