[highlights added] The Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday in favor of Houston homebuilder Bob Perry, the state’s most prolific campaign contributor, in a case homeowner advocates say reflects the influence of big money over elected judges.

The court overturned an $800,000 arbitration award to Bob and Jane Cull, a retirement-age couple from Mansfield in a decade-long battle over a defective house.



Bob and Jane Cull of Mansfield have been locked in a legal fight with Houston-based Perry Homes since 2000, when they sued after being unable to get the company to repair their home.

Mr. Perry, who has given millions of dollars to state and federal candidates, and members of his family have contributed more than $260,000 to all nine members of the Supreme Court, either directly or through a political action committee.

A spokesman for Mr. Perry hailed the decision and denied that political contributions played any part.

Mrs. Cull, who said the case has taken a toll financially and emotionally, called the ruling “a sad day for Texas homeowners.”

“All we ever wanted was a home with a good foundation, built properly, that could serve as our retirement home,” she said. “The little guy just can’t win, and that’s what’s so devastating about it.”

The case returns to district court. An arbitrator ruled that Perry Homes was responsible for foundation problems and other damage, but the homebuilder challenged the legitimacy of the award.

The Cull case, which has wound its way through the courts and the arbitration process since 2000, has focused attention on how construction disputes can last for years without resolution.

The Culls sued after being unable to get Perry Homes to repair their house. But before trial, the couple decided to seek arbitration to avoid what they feared would be a lengthy legal fight. 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 court and appeals court ruled against the homebuilder, but the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling on Friday, said Perry Homes had been treated unfairly.

The court ruled that the Culls potentially benefited by initially going to court under one set of rules, then seeking arbitration under another.

Also Online: Read the court's ruling and the justices' opinions

In particular, the court said the Culls “got the court to order discovery for them and then limited their opponents’ rights to appellate review.” The majority said that prejudiced the proceeding against the homebuilder.

In separate dissents, Justices Phil Johnson and Don Willett said the court was wrong to overturn the arbitration award. They said the trial court had properly ruled that Perry Homes wasn’t harmed by the switch to arbitration.

“Defendants’ attorneys had access to the same deposition testimony to use for arbitration preparation, so there could not have been an unfair advantage to the Culls,” Justice Johnson said in his dissent.

Critics say the Cull case underscores the difficulty for homeowners to get relief in the Texas court.

Last October, the Supreme Court ruled against a group of homebuyers in a case in which two homebuilders, U.S. Home and Lennar, had failed to install shower pans in new homes.

In that case, the homeowners wanted to avoid contract-required arbitration and go to court. The court ruled with the homebuilders for arbitration.

In the Cull case, the court ruled with the homebuilder who wanted the dispute settled in court.

Perry spokesman Anthony Holm said court is the proper place to hammer out the Culls’ claim that Mr. Perry had built a faulty home. He accused the couple’s lawyers of abusing the system by switching from court to arbitration.

“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 Mr. Holm.

Alex Winslow of Texas Watch, a nonprofit government watchdog group, said the ruling reflects the high court’s record of favoring business.

“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,” he said.

“This decision is little more than a bailout for a major political moneyman, and is the latest in a long line of pro-defendant rulings by our state’s highest court,” he said.

Since 2000, Mr. Perry and his family have contributed $263,000 to members of the court, both directly and through a political action committee. He is also a major benefactor of Texas for Lawsuit Reform, which has contributed $185,000 to the justices.

In Friday’s ruling, four of the justices who have received Perry money ruled against him and five ruled for him.

Among contributions to members of the court was $16,000 through the political action committee Hillco to help Justice Nathan Hecht a year ago as the court was preparing to hear arguments in the homebuilder’s case.

Mr. Hecht solicited donors to pay the cost of defending himself against a sanction for violating judicial conduct rules in promoting Harriet Miers’ failed appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. The sanction was subsequently overturned.

Mr. Hecht was among five justices who ruled in the majority.

By Wayne Slater (wslater@dallasnews.com), Dallas Morning News
05/02/2008

Source: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/050308dntexhomesuit.bf9a942a.html

 ↑ Back to Top