Motions on procedure made in court on J.B. Wells Park

Posted

The litigation between the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary and the City of Gonzales added another chapter last Thursday, as attorneys for both sides were in probate court to argue motions on the future of the J.B. Wells park property and the Expo Center.

For over an hour, attorneys argued motions of civil procedure before the Honorable Guy Herman, the Statutory Probate Court Judge from Austin.

The major issued argued before the court involved the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, or in layman’s terms, whether the cause of action filed by the plaintiff (Presbyterian) had a legal claim to be heard by this specific court.

The plaintiff’s attorney, Joe Marrs of the Houston law firm Johns, Marrs, Ellis and Hodge, argued there was indeed subject matter jurisdiction for the court, claiming that the terms of the JB Wells will and subsequent property deed conveyance presented matters of concern that an evidence hearing would have to resolve later on in a trial on the merits.

Attorneys representing the city of Gonzales from the San Antonio law firm of Denton, Navarro, Rocha, Bernal and Zech argued just the opposite. Attorney Patrick Bernal claimed that the will and deed were clear on not only the conveyance of the property, but in the use of the property as well; therefore there was no subject matter to claim jurisdiction for the court so there was nothing to litigate.

Presbyterian attorney Marrs argued on rebuttal that the city position was wrong; there are issues of fact and evidence in dispute, but those issues needed to be argued in a trial on the merits later on — with the court the ultimate fact finder. The petitioner made a motion claiming the city had not complied with discovery, or the turning over of relevant documents, and demanded that the court order the city to comply.

The city countered by claiming the Seminary was on a fishing expedition and was only looking for money and financial gain, citing questions proposed for discovery that had nothing to do with the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

Attorney Marrs pointed out to the court that the Seminary was not claiming bad faith or conduct by the city, but that the matters he intended to present at trial would be necessary to protect the Seminary’s interests under the conditions of the will and the deed.

Lawyers for the city said afterwards that if Judge Herman rules against the Seminary on the subject matter jurisdiction issue, “it would be game, set and match” for the city and the case would “for all intents and purposes” be over.

At the conclusion of oral arguments and presentations, Judge Herman accepted the notebooks and briefs presented by both sides, ordered both sides to research more briefs involving procedure and evidence, and ruled that he would make an adjudication on the motions and let the lawyers representing both sides know his decision in the future.

As of our press deadline for this week, no date for that decision has been set.

Comments