Several Texans On List of America's 100 Largest Landowners

One of my favorite publications, The Land Report, recently published its list of the nation's largest landowners. The magazine calls its list "the most comprehensive list of the nation’s landowning elite." I could hardly disagree.

It was no surprise that Ted Turner topped the list. With total land holdings of more than 2,000,000 (yes two million) acres, Turner has amassed an impressive, dare I say awesome, catalogue of exquisite ranches, in Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico. His Ranch holdings include the Bar None (23,000 acres) and Flying D (119,000 acres) in Montana, Vermejo Park in New Mexico(600,000+ acres bought from Penzoil), The Snowcrest, and even a property in the Patagonia region of Argentina. Despite the divergence in our politics, I am in awe of the conservation, wildlife and stewardship efforts of Ted Turner. He has consistently granted conservation easments, engaged in extensive habitat restoration and even mass fence removal. He owns a 45,000 head herd of bison, and has re-introduced several wildlife species to properties. Turner is serious about wildlife preservation and restoration, and frequently puts is money where is heart is. For this we lovers of great, wide-open spaces are eternally grateful. But... Turner is no Texan, and all of the money in the world cannot change that.

Texans -- native and transplant alike -- are well-represented on the list. Leading the pack of Lone Star empressarios are the King Ranch heirs, with a combined total acreage of 851,642 acres. The King Ranch is among the many reasons I am proud to call Texas home, and its history, triumphs and tribulations have been well-chronicled. Coming in at Nos. 12 and 13, respectively, are the Lykes Bros. Heirs from Florida who own approximately 240,000 acres in west Texas, and Governor Dolph Briscoe whose holdings were estimated at 560,000 acres. Notably, Gov. Briscoe, on whose Gato Creek Ranch I have hunted, "declined to confirm published reports of the size of the Briscoe Ranch."

Number 14 on the list is "the nation's largest ranch under one fence" owned by the W.T. Waggoner Estate. This contiguous parcel of 520,000 acres (approximately 800 square miles) is located near Vernon, Texas in Wise County. It was founded in the mid-1800's and maintains the "Three D" brand.

Number 15 is another Texas household name -- O'Connor. The O’Connor family’s ties to cattle ranching in South Texas date back to the 1830s, when Thomas O’Connor arrived from Ireland. Today, the descendants of D.M. O’Connor share ownership of an estimated 500,000 acres of ranchland in and around Victoria County.

The 18th, 19th and 20th biggest landowners all maintain deep and storied Texas roots.

Number 18 are the East family descendants. Their San Antonio Viejo and Santa Fe Ranches were assembled by Alice Gertrudis Kleberg East after she cashed out her interest in the King Ranch. She was a member of the Kleberg family -- owners of the King Ranch.

No. 19 is Anette Marion, heir to the Four Sixes Ranch Comprised of one-third million acres, the ranch has a storied history that began with a poker game and a winning hand of four sixes—reputedly, but not so. The real history of the Four Sixes began with Samuel Burk Burnett, who became one of the most influential and prosperous cattlemen in Texas. Before the age of 20, he purchased from Frank Crowley in Denton County a herd of cattle wearing the 6666 brand. Burnett recorded the brand in 1875 in Wichita County, Texas, on the Kiowa-Comanche Reservation in 1881and in other counties in years following. The Four Sixes Ranch continues today as a forerunner in the cattle industry, and maintains a breeding herd of some 7,000 mother Angus cows. The ranch is also recognized for its exceptional horses. The brand used on the Sixes’ horses is the same one burned on the first horses Burk Burnett bought.

No. 20 is a San Antonio legacy -- La Escalera Ranch owned by Builder Gerald Lyda -- the builder of projects as great as Texas Memorial Stadium (now DKR) The Tower of the Americas, La Cantera, Fiesta Texas and the Alamodome. La Escalera Ranch (III Brand) is one of the largest cattle ranches in Texas consisting of more than 320,000 deeded acres in five counties (Pecos, Reeves, Brewster, Archer and Baylor).

Other notable Texas properties are ranked 23 (Jeff Bezos -- 290,000 acres), Jones heirs (255,000 acres), Frank Yturria Ranch, Hearst Ranch.

To see the complete Land Report 100, click here.

Report: Real Estate Is Texas' 3rd Most Important Industry

Real estate is the third most important private industry in Texas, according to the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The real estate industry accounted for 7.8 percent of Texas’ total gross domestic product (GDP) in 2006, ranking behind manufacturing (13.4 percent) and mining (9.8percent). “The GDP is the broadest measure of economic importance when looking at the overall economy,” said Dr. Ali Anari, a research economist with the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University.

Anari studied the real estate industry’s role in the state’s economy and compiled his findings in the Center’s report, Texas Real Estate Industry Review, 2008.
While the GDP is an important indicator of overall economic health, Anari said other data can be just as valuable. “For instance, local governments may be more interested in knowing about tax revenues than GDP,” he said.

Other highlights from the Center’s report:

• Every $1 million of revenue in the Texas real estate industry generates just over half a million dollars of revenue in other parts of the state economy.
• Every $1 million of revenue in the Texas real estate industry generates 5.16 jobs in the state real estate industry and five jobs in other industries.
• $1 million of sales tax in the state’s real estate industry leads to a total of $1.26 million of sales tax in the Texas economy.
• The real estate industry has the largest proportion of self‐employed persons of all industries.
• Nearly 552,000 persons, including self‐employed individuals, were working in the Texas real estate industry in 2007, representing 3.9 percent of statewide employment.
• Texas commercial real estate in Texas was valued at more than $251 billion in 2007. Texas industrial real estate was valued at more than $85 billion.
• Taxes paid by the state’s real estate industry accounted for 18.7 percent of total Texas business taxes in 2007.
• Real estate owners paid an estimated $24 billion in school tax in 2007.


Source: Real Estate Center Texas a&m,

R L Wilson, P.C. Clients the Subject of Rio Grande Valley News Story

Yesterday, R L Wilson, P.C. Law Firm clients Carl & Janel Parker and firm attorney Bob Schaezler were featured on a news story appearing on KVEO 23 -- the NBC affiliate in the Rio Grande Valley. The story concentrates on the pending litigation between the Parkers and their water provider, East Rio Hondo Water Supply Company (ERHWSC).

In July 2008 -- just days after Hurricane Dolly devastated the Rio Grande Valley, ERHWSC interrupted the Parkers' water service when they refused to grant the utility a 10' easement through their front yard. According to ERHWSC, the easement was needed for the installation of a new pipeline along FM 510 near Los Fresnos. When questioned about the need to place the easement just inches from the Partkers' front door and in the path of several trees cherished by the family (including a decades-old soft-shelled pecan tree), ERHWSC cited plans to "widen FM 510." However, these plans could never be confirmed by any non-ERHWSC source, and both Cameron County and TXDOT officials have indicated that no definite expansion plans exist, and that the funding for an expansion is not in place. Little details...

The Parkers, who are in their 80's, declined to give ERHWSC the destructive easement they requested. However, they offered ERHWSC a free easement of 5' in width. In response, ERHWSC disconnected the Parkers' water service -- even though they were current on all utility bills and had been ERHWSC customers for nearly 15 years. That's when the Parkers' daughter, who lives near Houston called me. Linda explained that, because of the culture of corruption in the Valley (her childhood home), she wanted an "outside" lawyer who was tough, knowledgable and experienced in water-related litigation.

After several unsuccessful efforts to reach a resolution with ERHWSC, we were forced to file suit against them for the purpose of having the Court Order that the Parkers' water service be reinstated. In August 2008 we successfully obtained a TRO compelling water service, and then moved the fight to Austin --- home of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The TCEQ agreed with our position, and on November 22, 2008, issued an Order in which they found ERHWSC's disconnection of water unlawful, and ordered the ERHWSC to provide continuous and adequate water service to the Parkers -- irrespective of whether they granted an easement.

The fight has now returned to Cameron County, where the Parkers seek damages to compensate them for their time without water service -- weeks living off of irrigation cisterns and hauling water in containers -- and recovery of the substantial attorneys' fees and costs they've expended in responding to ERHWSC's illegal conduct. The case has been set for trial in Brownsville in May.

To see complete details on this suit, view my earlier blog post and a story that appeared in the Valley Morning Star newspaper on August 29, 2008.

Mystic Shores Residents File Suit Against Unscrupulous Builder -- Comal County, Texas

R L Wilson, P.C. Law Firm today filed a lawsuit on behalf of its clients Larry and Lynda Restine against homebuilders JV Investments, Inc., Texas Hill Country Estates, and Joe Van Dyke. The suit, filed in the Comal County District Court, arises from material defects constructed into the Restines' Mystic Shores home by the homebuilders.

At least 35 construction defects alleged by the Restines have been confirmed by a Third-Party inspector appointed by the Texas Residential Construction Commission as part of the SIRP process. Though provided with a copy of the TRCC inspector's findings, the Defendants never appealed these findings. Accordingly, the contents of the inspector's report (that there are at least 35 items of non-compliance with TRCC standards)now constitute presumptions of construction defects in Plaintiffs’ home. See Tex.Prop.Code § 426.008(a).

In addition, the suit alleges that JV Investments, Inc., Texas Hill Country Estates, and Joe Van Dyke committed fraud and violated the Texas Trust Act by diverting the proceeds of the Restines' construction loan away from subcontractors and suppliers. The homebuilders drew 100% of the proceeds of the Restines' construction loan, but in many instances never passed these payments along to those who actually performed the work.

The Restines did not learn that many of the individuals and entities supplying labor and materials for the construction of their home were never paid until 77 days after they closed on and occupied the property. It was then that Joe Van Dyke executed an “Affidavit of Completion,” indicating that 20 suppliers and/or subcontractors on the residential construction project were not paid, and that a total balance of $52,394.10 was due and owing to such suppliers and subcontractors. Many of the unpaid suppliers and subcontractors have now filed liens against the home, thereby clouding the Restines' title and preventing them from re-financing the home to achieve a more favorable interest rate. In addition, various suppliers and subcontractors have threatened to commence lawsuits against the Restines in an effort to collect upon their unpaid Invoices. Others of the subcontractors have refused to perform repairs and/or corrections upon the residence because they were never paid.

This is not the first suit filed against the homebuilders in question. At least three other lawsuits have been filed against them by suppliers and subcontractors who were never paid. In at least one of these suits the unpaid subcontractors also sued the homeowners and sought to foreclose a mechanics lien.

The Restines seek unspecified damages in the lawsuit, and the full extent of their losses are not known. At this time, they are soliciting bids from new builders to repair the defects that they and the TRCC claim JV Investments, Inc., Texas Hill Country Estates, and Joe Van Dyke built-into the home. It is anticipated that the repairs will require the Restines to vacate the home and seek temporary housing for several weeks. In addition to costs of repair, it is anticipated that the Resines will face significant reductions in the fair market value of their home after the construction is completed.

The Restines are represented in their lawsuit by San Antonio Attorney Trey Wilson. Wilson also represented the Restines before the TRCC and guided them through the SIRP process, which was resolved in their favor.

Texas Court: Deed of Trust Extinguished Upon Payment and Did Not Secure Additional Non Recourse Note

Generally, a deed of trust is extinguished upon payment of the indebtedness which it was created to secure even without a written release. However, if the deed of trust contains a dragnet clause, in some circumstances, the deed of trust may be found secure future indebtedness created after the original indebtedness was paid. A Texas Court recently analyzed these issues in Craig v. Ponderosa Development, LP.

A debtor executed a promissory note (“Note”) in favor of creditor. The Note was secured by a Deed of Trust against property owned by the debtor. The Deed of Trust contained both a dragnet clause and a release provision. A “dragnet” clause is a future advance clause. In other words, the dragnet clause in the Deed of Trust provided that the property secured both the Note and the payment of future indebtedness. The release in the Deed of Trust stated that “upon payment of all sums accrued by this Instrument, Lender shall release this Instrument.”

The debtor paid the full amount of the Note to creditor; however, creditor never released the Note or Deed of Trust. After debtor paid the Note in full, debtor executed a Non-Recourse Promissory Note in favor of creditor. Debtor defaulted on the Non-Recourse Promissory Note and creditor attempted to foreclose on the Deed of Trust. The creditor argued that the dragnet clause of the Deed of Trust covered the Non-Recourse Promissory Note.

A deed of trust has no legal effect apart from the debt it is intended to secure. A deed of trust is usually extinguished upon payment of the indebtedness which it was created to secure. Extinguishment is complete even without a written release. However, there may be an exception to extinguishment when the deed of trust contains a dragnet clause.

Texas courts do not recognize the enforceability of dragnet clauses unless the subsequent debt to be secured was reasonably within the contemplation of the parties to the deed of trust at the time it was executed. If the requisite intent is found, however, courts have indicated that dragnet clauses will be given effect even as to indebtedness created after the debt originally underlying a deed of trust has been paid in full.

In this case, the Court found that when read in conjunction with other provisions in the Deed of Trust, it was clear that the dragnet clause was not intended to secure future indebtedness created after the Note was paid in full. Any other interpretation would render the release in the Deed of Trust meaningless. The court concluded that the application of the dragnet clause to the Non-Recourse Note was not within the parties' contemplation at the time they signed the Deed of Trust.

Foreclosure postings upward bound in Bexar County

Bexar County foreclosure postings reached a record high during the first quarter of 2009, according to newly released data from Foreclosure Listing Service Inc.

George Roddy Sr., president of Foreclosure Listing Service, says foreclosure postings are at the highest quarterly level seen in Bexar County since the company began tracking foreclosure data in Texas in 1963.

“Foreclosure postings in Bexar County have reached a new quarterly record level high,” Roddy says. “Topping 3,400 postings for the very first time, 3,447 foreclosure notices have been filed on real estate located in Bexar County for the first three foreclosure auctions of 2009. This represents the seventh consecutive year that foreclosure postings filed for the first quarter in Bexar County have increased.”

In January, a total of 1,081 homes were put up for auction in Bexar County. In February, 1,261 homes hit the auction block, a record number for a single month. Finally, some 1,105 homes are slated to be put up for sale at the auction scheduled for March 3.

Foreclosure activity in the first quarter of 2009 is up 26 percent compared to the first quarter of 2008.

“Just when you think that surely foreclosure postings will not get any higher, we see another increase in activity,” he says.


SA Business Journal

Texas sets aside $7.5 million to help Countrywide customers

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on Wednesday launched a restitution program that makes $7.46 million available to eligible Countrywide Financial Corp. mortgage customers who lost their homes due to foreclosure.

Last year, the state reached a $345 million settlement with Countrywide benefiting Texas homeowners. The attorney general’s office alleged that Countrywide encouraged homeowners to accept loans they could not afford, failed to fully disclose risky loan terms to borrowers, and wrote loans to unqualified borrowers in order to increase market share.

“Last year we investigated Countrywide and reached a sweeping agreement that included loan modification opportunities for nearly 30,000 Texas homeowners,” Abbott says. “With today’s announcement, we are implementing the final portion of our agreement and making restitution funds available to Texans whose homes were lost to foreclosure.”

Restitution money is available to Countrywide customers in Texas who lost their homes to foreclosure — or whose payments were 120 days behind as of Oct. 6, 2008.

Previously announced aspects of the 2008 settlement included $335 million in loan modifications for about 30,000 Texans. The company changed the terms of homeowners’ mortgages to make them more affordable to affected customers. Also, about 1,400 Texans who are either in default or likely in default on their subprime mortgages who “voluntarily and appropriately” turn over their homes are eligible to receive up to $2,000 each as part of a Relocation Assistance Program.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) — which bought Countrywide last year — will distribute application forms to eligible homeowners.

TRCC issues its first lifetime ban to builder

For the first time in its history, the Texas Residential Construction Commission has issued a lifetime ban to a home builder.

The commission Wednesday permanently banned Affiliates LLC, which did business as First Home. The builder has no San Antonio ties, but built in the Central Texas cities of Jarrell, Taylor and Belton.

The lifetime ban also applies to the company's agent, Pete Stucky, who now is prohibited from participating in any home-building-related ventures in Texas.

“This has been a big deal not only for us, but for the community generally,” said Duane Waddill, executive director of the TRCC. “It's important that builders know we're serious, and we're not going to let people get away with defrauding homeowners and not treating people fairly.”

The commission began investigating the company in September 2008 after more than 100 homeowners logged complaints about the company and shoddy construction. Stucky built about 150 homes total.

The TRCC banned the company for not making repairs on defective products still under warranty, claiming properties were free of liens when they were not and for doing business as First Home, a name not registered with the commission.


By Creighton A. Welch - Express-News

Austin Lawyer Tip: Texas Foreclosure Procedures in Real Estate

In order to set up a non-judicial foreclosure, the lender must do several things in order to have the ability to foreclosure their security interest, or what we call a Deed of Trust. First, the loan papers (or "documentation") must include an obligation to pay (usually called a Note, Real Estate Lien Note, Promissory Note, or Note with Vendor's Lien) and should also include the security agreement (usually referred to as a Deed of Trust). The Deed of Trust gives the lender the right to "foreclose" its security interest if the Obligor fails to pay. The Deed of Trust should appoint a "trustee" and must contain a "power of sale." The Deed of Trust should also give the lender the right to designate "Substitute Trustee." In Texas, the foreclosure is usually by way of a "non-judicial" foreclosure, or by way of the posting of the property for sale on the first Tuesday of the month.

The following steps contain the basic procedures that the lender must go through in order to get to the point where they may foreclose the lien:

1) Demand for Payment - once the Obligor defaults in the making of one or more payments, the lender must give notice of the default and demand the overdue payment or payments.

2) Notice of Intention to Accelerate - prior to being able to foreclose its lien, the lender must give notice of intention to accelerate. The Notice of Intention to Accelerate is usually combined with a demand for payment. The notice should give at least ten (10) days within which the Obligor can cure the default. If the property is the Obligor's "residence," then the Notice of Intention to Accelerate should give the Obligor at least twenty (20) days notice. After the appropriate time period has expired, then the lender is free to "post" the property for a non-judicial foreclosure.

3) Notice of Foreclosure - assuming that the Lender has a valid Deed of Trust and that the lender has appropriately moved to foreclose through the designated trustee or its "substitute" trustee, then after the expiration of time on the Notice of Intention to Accelerate, the lender can "post" the property for foreclosure. This is done with the giving of Notice of Foreclosure. The Notice must be posted at the Courthouse and must be send via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to the last known address of the debtor. Because only the sending of the certified mail is usually required, it does no good for the debtor to attempt to refuse delivery, as the debtor would only denying themselves the information contained in the Foreclosure Notice. The Notice must give the debtor at least 21 days notice of the foreclosure, and must inform the debtor of the time, date, and place of the foreclosure sale. Foreclosure sales take place at the location designated by the Commissioner's Court for each County in which the property (or any part of the property if the property is located in more than one County) is located.

4) Posting of the Property - the Notice of Foreclosure should then be "posted" at the designated location where notices are given at the County Courthouse (or other designated location). The Notice should be posted for the full twenty one (21) days prior to the sale and must be filed with the County Clerk's office.

5) Foreclosure Sale - The foreclosure sale should take place on the designated date between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., that date being the first Tuesday of the month of the foreclosure sale. The sale must begin within three (3) hours of the time stated in the notice of foreclosure. At the foreclosure sale, the trustee or substitute trustee must "strike off" or sell the property to the highest bidder. The trustee is not required to sell the property for any particular price. For this reason, debtors are usually advised to attend the sale if they have some ability to redeem.

6) Substitute Trustees / Trustee's Deed - the final step in the process is for the Trustee (or Substitute Trustee if one was appointed) to prepare and file a Trustee's or Substitute Trustee's Deed to reflect that the property was sold. The Deed will then transfer title of the property to the purchaser or back to the lender, as the case may be. The lender should check the Deed to be sure that it accurately reflects what happened at the foreclosure sale.

Due to the complexity of these proceedings and the possibility of many pitfalls (or loopholes as many call them), if you have questions about the validity of any foreclosure sale, you should seek the advice of an attorney who is experienced in foreclosure litigation and foreclosure sales.

Austin Lawyer Tip: Texas Real Estate Foreclosure Litigation

There has been a tremendous amount of litigation relating to foreclosures. On each side of the fence there are competing interests. On the one side there are real estate companies, banks, lenders, and mortgage servicers. On the other side, are homeowners, families, and even children. There are very important issues on each side of the fence.

If you are looking at having your property foreclosed upon, you should first attempt to work out an agreement with your lender after falling behind in payments. Many mortgage lenders have various programs to get you current. Sometimes they are willing to move a delinquent payment to the end of the mortgage, or they may simply add the accrued interest to the loan balance and give you a new amortization schedule. If you have fallen behind, you should pursue all of your remedies with the lender prior to proceeding with any legal options. If the lender is unwilling or unable to help you get current, and they are not willing to grant you an extension or renewal, then another option is to seek to have the loan refinanced.

If the foreclosure is imminent and you are sure that you do not want to keep the home, you should first attempt to give the lender a "Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure." By doing this, you may be able to negotiate a release by the lender and avoid a costly deficiency lawsuit, whereby the lender could go after you for any losses they incur in taking back the property (in other words you could be liable for any resulting "deficiency" between the sales price at the foreclosure and the total amount of the debt).

Anther option if you are sure that you do not want to keep the home is to sell it prior to the foreclosure. By doing this, you may also avoid the possibility of a deficiency lawsuit by the lender against you. In this marketplace, this might be easier said than done.

If none of these options are available, and it looks like the lender is going to foreclose, then you may want to seek the advice of a bankruptcy attorney. With the bankruptcy, your prior payments may be able to be treated as an "arrearage" so that you can make payments on the old debt while staying current on the new or "post-petition" indebtedness.

However, what do you do if bankruptcy is not available to you for some reason? What if you believe that your lender has taken advantage of you? Are their any other options? The answer to these questions are "maybe." A commercial litigation attorney may be able to help. However, oftentimes, these options are very expensive. If you had this kind of money, you probably should have simply paid down the mortgage. Nevertheless, litigation attorneys will review all of the documentation and the foreclosure documents to ensure that the lender has met all of the requirements for a valid non-judicial foreclosure. Strict compliance is usually required.

Standard Visitation in Texas Divorce and Family Law Cases.

As codified in the Texas Family Code, the Texas Legislature has set out what is essentially the "recommended" visitation schedule for parents (and other conservators) in a Divorce or other family law cases (such as a Modification case, Paternity Case, or other Suit Affecting the Parent Child Relationship "SAP-CR" matter). The "Standard" Visitation Schedule is presumed to be in the best interests of the children for all children who are three (3) years of age and older. In setting specific visitation schedules, it is the policy of the State of Texas to: (1) assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child; (2) provide a safe, stable, and nonviolent environment for the child; and (3) encourage parents to share in the rights and duties of raising their child after the parents have separated or divorced. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.001.

It is important to note that the Standard Visitation Schedule is what is ordered when the parents cannot "mutually" agree to work out the schedule in advance. In other words, when the parents / conservators are unable to work out an agreement, Standard Visitation is what is ordered. Standard Visitation varies depending upon how far the children live from the parent who is exercising the visitation. The dividing line is 100 miles. If you have specific questions about the visitation schedule, you should look at the exact provisions that have been ordered in your case, because they might be different from the schedule as set forth below. However, current orders for Standard Visitation generally provide as follows:

_______________________________________________________

Parents or conservators who live 100 miles (or less) from the children:

▪ Weekend Visits – On the first, third and fifth weekends of each month from either when school lets out or 6:00 p.m. on Friday to either when school begins on Monday morning or 6:00 p.m. on Sunday, at the election of the visiting parent or conservator.

▪ Weekday Visits – On Thursday from either 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. or on Thursday from the time school lets out to Friday morning when school begins.

▪ Christmas Vacation – In even-numbered years from 6:00 p.m. on the day school is recessed for the holiday to 12:00 noon on December 28. In odd-numbered years from 12:00 noon on December 28 to 6:00 p.m. on the day prior to the day school resumes.

▪ Thanksgiving – In odd-numbered years from 6:00 p.m. on the day when school lets out to 6:00 p.m. on the Sunday after Thanksgiving. (Even-numbered years go to the conservator or parent who has the right to designate the primary residence of the child).

▪ Spring Break – In even-numbered years from 6:00 p.m. on the day when school lets out to 6:00 p.m. on the Sunday before school begins. (odd-numbered years go to the conservator or parent who has the right to designate the primary residence of the child).

▪ Each Child’s Birthday – On the child’s birthday from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

▪ Father’s or Mother’s Day – On Father’s or Mother’s day from 6:00 p.m. on the Friday prior to Father’s Day or Mother’s Day (as applicable) to 6:00 p.m. on such day.

▪ Extended Summer Visitation – If written notice is given by April 1 – possession of the child for a total of thirty (30) days, provided that such visit must end at least seven (7) days prior to the end of summer vacation. If without written notice by April 1, possession from 6:00 p.m. July 1 to 6:00 p.m. on July 31. It should be noted that the other parent can designate one (1) weekend for possession during the summer by giving notice of the date by April 15 or upon 14 days written notice.

Parents or conservators who live greater than 100 miles from the children:
▪ Weekend Visits – Either as provided above, or by designating one weekend per month upon 7 day’s notice (either by written or telephone notice).

▪ Christmas Vacation – In even-numbered years from 6:00 p.m. on the day school is recessed for the holiday to 12:00 noon on December 28. In odd-numbered years from 12:00 noon on December 28 to 6:00 p.m. on the day prior to the day school resumes.

▪ Thanksgiving – In odd-numbered years from 6:00 p.m. on the day when school lets out to 6:00 p.m. on the Sunday after Thanksgiving. (Even-numbered years go to the conservator or parent who has the right to designate the primary residence of the child).

▪ Spring Break – Every year from 6:00 p.m. on the day when school lets out to 6:00 p.m. on the Sunday before school begins.

▪ Each Child’s Birthday – On the child’s birthday from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

▪ Father’s or Mother’s Day – On Father’s or Mother’s day from 6:00 p.m. on the Friday prior to Father’s Day or Mother’s Day (as applicable) to 6:00 p.m. on such day.

▪ Extended Summer Visitation – If written notice is given by April 1 – possession of the child for a total of thirty (42) days, provided that such visit must end at least seven (7) days prior to the end of summer vacation. If without written notice by April 1, possession from 6:00 p.m. June 15 to 6:00 p.m. on July 27. It should be noted that the other parent can designate either one (1) weekend for possession during the summer if the visit is thirty (30) days or less, or two (2) weekends if the visit is more than thirty (30) days by giving notice of the date by April 15.

________________________________________________________________

It should be noted that under Texas Family Code § 153.315, if a weekend period of possession coincides with a school holiday during the school year (or a federal, state, or local holiday during the summer months in which school is not in session), the weekend possession ends at 6:00 p.m. on the Monday holiday or school holiday or (if applicable) will begin at 6:00 p.m. Thursday for a Friday holiday or school holiday, as applicable.

The parent or conservator may also elect (in the order at the time the Order is signed by the Judge) to have to have their periods of possession so-extended by Holiday begin at the time the child is dismissed from school.

If you have specific questions about how your Order or Divorce Decree works in any given situation, you should contact the attorney that represented you or an experienced family law attorney.

Mediation in a Texas Divorce or Family Law Case.

Mediation is a non-binding Alternative Dispute Resolution procedure for the settlement of disputes. "Non-binding" means that you control the outcome and are not required to settle your case. Although there is a trained mediator who "facilitates" the proceedings, there is no Judge (or Arbitrator) making a decision or imposing his or her will upon you. The mediator is neutral and will remain impartial in the proceedings, meaning that they do not "sides." You retain control as to whether, and, if so, under what terms, the case settles. The matters discussed at the mediation are confidential, so you cannot generally subpoena the mediator to testify and you cannot use what one party says (or doesn't say) at the mediation against them in Court. In a typical mediation, if the parties are not able to settle their case, then the parties still have the ability to go to the Judge for a decision.

Mediation has been a very successful method for resolving disputes in divorce and other family law cases (which could include paternity cases, modifications, enforcement actions, grandparent rights cases, and child custody cases). The only proviso is that the parties (and their attorneys) must genuinely intend to put forth a good-faith effort to settle their disputes. Most mediators also do not take mediation cases when there have been allegations of domestic violence during the relationship. In most divorce and family cases, the reality is that the parties know each other very well and -- despite what is commonly said during these highly charged cases -- have the ability to resolve their disputes peacefully and fairly. The legal proceedings are no different. Additionally, when there are children involved, the parties will have to deal with one another for many years after the legal case ends. Therefore, the amicable settlement of the dispute is very important.

Another realistic observation that can be made from sucessful mediations is that the parties are much more likely to comply with a settlement that is reached by agreement, than with a Court's order that is arbitrarily imposed upon a party.

Most of the time, the mediator will begin the proceedings in one room with all of the parties (although in some highly-contentious case, the parties stay apart the entire mediation). In the joint session, the mediator will lay out the ground rules and then allow each party (or their attorneys) to make a position statement. Although each mediator may handle things slightly differently, most attorney-based mediation models then separate the parties out into different "caucus" rooms. It is at this point that the mediator will meet with each side separately to learn more about the case from the perspective of each party. Once the mediator has a relatively good grasp of the case from each side, he or she will keep going from room to room in an effort to settle or "compromise" the case. A compromise is just that -- not the ideal outcome, but something that can be lived with in an effort to settle the dispute. If an agreement cannot be reached then at some point, the mediator may declare an "impasse."

If, however, an agreement is reached, then the Texas mediator will reduce all of the agreements to writing so that there is no confusion about what deal was struck. If all of the issues in the case are dealt with at the mediation, then usually the parties will be able to obtain Judgment based upon the written settlement agreement.

COP WATCH: North Texas Sheriff Cops a Plea in Fed Court, Faces 10 Yrs in Pen

The feds got themselves another Texas Sheriff last week.

Montague Sheriff Bill Keating Pled Guilty and Faces 10 Years in Prison, $250K in Fines

Last Thursday, Montague County Sheriff Bill Keating - a man who has worn a badge for the past forty years - accepted a plea deal offered by federal prosecutors, pleading guilty in federal court for violating the civil rights of a woman and facing a maximum fine of $250,000 and 10 years in federal prison.

"Civil rights violation" sounds pretty tame, doesn't it? Well, actually it is kinda reminiscent of the old Al Capone case, where the feds got Capone on tax evasion. Those federal crimes sound kind of dull and dry, until you find out all the details behind them.

The Backstory on Sheriff Bill

The real story behind Sheriff Bill Keating, 62, is a nasty one. As reported by the Feds, it seems the sheriff and his crew went out to some guy's house, with a warrant, to arrest him. When they got there, the man and his girlfriend were at the house. Rather than just taking the guy in, the Sheriff's posse looked around and found some drug paraphernalia along with the dregs of some methamphetamine.

Sexual Assault On More Than One Occasion Equals Violation of Federal Civil Rights

And here's where the story gets really bad. Seems Sheriff Keating took the girlfriend aside and threatened to bust her, too, unless she had sex with him. Authorities report that the two, the Sheriff and the girlfriend, drove in his pickup truck to some back road where she performed oral sex on Sheriff Bill.

It wasn't over then, though. The Feds report that Sheriff Bill went back to the girlfriend on several occasions with the same demands for sexual favors, and that he also forced her to agree to become an informant for the Sheriff's Department.

This is the stuff of bad B movies. The only good thing? That woman had the courage to tell the truth about what was happening to her. Good for her. That took guts, to go against a Texas Sheriff and his whole department.

Now, the State District Attorney Has His Turn at Bat: More Charges Are Expected

While the Feds have made their case based upon constitutional violations, the State of Texas still has a turn at bat. And, the Montague County District Attorney has announced he's looking to file charges against Sheriff Bill Keating, along with assorted deputies, for having sex with inmates in the county jail along with allowing contraband into the facility.

And, get this -- things were so bad in that jail under Sheriff Bill's command, that some of the jail cells had recliners in them. Recliners. Think about that.

Look for the State indictments to hit sometime later this month.

Betcha we're gonna here lots more bad stuff about ol' Sheriff Bill: that fed story about the girlfriend? Tip of the iceberg. Betcha.

And, betcha we're gonna see some civil lawsuits popping up sometime soon, too. You know, civil damages for the Sheriff's bad actions, and the assertions of an immunity defense.

Sources:

Associated Press
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g6FG_8F8-Kdg5r_VIRh9X6tBOIUQD9612ED00

Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-sheriff_30tex.ART.State.Edition1.46fda64.html

The 2009 Texas Attorney General Tax Chart.

The 2009 Attorney General Tax Chart is now available for the setting of child support in Texas. It is interesting to note that the Texas Minimum Wage will change from $6.55 to $7.25 on July 24, 2009. Therefore, the minumum wage presumption used for setting child support will increase on that day.

As a result, if child support is set using the minimum wage presumption (based upon a 40 hour work week), child support would be as follows:

From January 1, 2009 to July 23, 2009:

1 Child - $202.57
2 Children - $253.22
3 Children - $303.86
4 Children - $354.51
5 Children- $405.14
6+ Children- Not Less Than $405.14

From July 24, 2009 to December 31, 2009:

1 Child - $222.56
2 Children - $278.20
3 Children - $333.84
4 Children - $389.48
5 Children - $445.12
6+ Children- Not Less Than $445.12

These amounts do not include arguments that the Obligor might have for paying a reduced amount due to actual payments of union dues and/or health care insurance for the child(ren). Also, the amounts also do not adjust for any children that outside the household upon which the order is based, for whom the Obligor may also have a duty of support. For the reduced percentages, see Texas Family Code §154.129