High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFHOUSTONCOUNTY,ALABAMAHOUSTONCOUNTYCOMMISSION)
)
Plaintiff,)
)
v.)
)
HOUSTONECONOMIC)DEVELOPMENTASSOCIATION)
)
Defendant.)
CASENO:CV-2010-108CONSENTJUDGMENTPlaintiffHoustonCountyCommission(the"Commission")commencedtheunderlyinglawsuitonMarch4,2010throughthefilingofaDeclaratoryJudgmentComplaintintheNatureofanInterpleader(the"Complaint")againstDefendantHoustonEconomicDevelopmentAssociation("HEDA")(collectivelythe"Parties").InitsComplaint,theCommissionseeksajudicialdeterminationoftheParties'rightswithrespecttocertainmachinebingostampfeesintheamountof$1,693,000paidbyHEDAtotheCommissiononDecember31,2009(the"Payment").BasedontheParties'StipulationforEntryofConsentJudgment,theCourtmakesthefollowingfindingsandconclusions:I.HEDA,astheholderofaClassCBingoPermitissuedbytheCommission,madethePaymenttotheCommissiononDecember31,2010toobtainnewMachineBingoStampsinaccordancewithSection8(a)ofHoustonCountyResolution08-25(the"Resolution")fortheoperationofBingoGamesonelectronicplayerstationequipmentusedbyHEDAintheoperationofbingogames(the"Equipment").
2.UponreceiptofthePayment,theCommissionissuedrenewalMachineBingoStampstoHEDA,asaresultofwhichHEDAwasauthorizedundertheResolutiontousetheEquipmentintheoperationofbingogamesfortheentire2010calendaryear.3.AlthoughboththeCommissionandHEDAanticipatedthatHEDAwouldusetheEquipmentintheoperationofbingogamesfortheentire2010calendaryear,factorsbeyondthecontrolofthePartieshavepreventedHEDAfromusingtheEquipmentsinceJanuary29,2010.
4.
BasedonitsinabilitytousetheEquipmentdespitehavingpaidtheannualcostforMachineBingoStamps,HEDAfiledaclaimwiththeCommissiononFebruary22,2010forrefundofaportionofthePaymentinrelianceupontheequitabledoctrineofmistake.AfterdenyingtheclaimonFebruary26,2010,theCommissioncommencedtheunderlyingDeclaratoryJudgmentComplaintintheNatureofaBillinInterpleaderactiononMarch4,2010andobtainedpermissionbyorderofthisCourttodepositwiththeClerkoftheCourt$1,001,916,representingtheproratedamountsoughtbyHEDAinitsclaimlessanestimated$550,000thattheCommissionclaimedhadalreadybeenencumbered.5.BycounterclaimdatedJune25,2010,HEDAfiledacounterclaiminthisCourtseekingarefundof$1,551,916.67,plusinterest.6.ThePartieshavereachedacompromiseofdisputedclaimsandissuesinthiscasecontingentuponentrybythisCourtofaproposedConsentJudgmenttowhichboththeCommissionandHEDAhaveformallyagreed.7.Basedonanindependentreviewofthepleadings,verifiedevidence,stipulations,andotherevidencefiledinthiscase,theCourtconcludesthat:
2
A.ArealdisputeexistsbetweenthePartiesoverHEDA'sclaimedentitlementtoarefundintheamountof$1,551,916.67,plusinterest;
B.ThetermsreflectedintheproposedConsentJudgmentrepresentasubstantialcompromisebyboththeCommissionandHEDA;C.TheCommissionhasfulllegalauthoritytocompromiseandsettlethiscasebeforetrialbyandthroughtheConsentJudgmentintheformproposedbytheParties;D.TheCourthastheproperauthorityandjurisdictiontoenteraConsentJudgmentintheformproposedbytheParties;andE.ThetermsoftheproposedConsentJudgment,beingfair,reasonable,andequitable,willlikelyresultinsubstantialsavingsofbothtimeandexpensetotheParties.8.BasedontheCourt'sfindingsandconclusions,theCourtbelievestheproposedConsentJudgmentisproperlyenteredinordertofacilitateanamicableresolutionofthiscase.Accordingly,itisherebyORDERED,ADJUDGED,ANDDECREEDasfollows:
1.TheCourthasjurisdictionoverthePartiesandthesubjectmatteroftheclaimsat
issue.2.UponentryofthisConsentJudgment,theClerkoftheCourtisdirectedtodisbursetoHEDA$881,916ofthefundsthattheCommissiondeposited,plusanyinterestthathasaccruedthereon,whichamountHEDAhasagreedtoacceptinfullsatisfactionofitsc1aim(s)setforthinitsJune25,2010counterclaim,subjecttothetermsandconditionsofthisConsentJudgment.3.UponentryofthisConsentJudgment,theClerkoftheCourtisdirectedtodisbursetotheCommissionallremainingfundsintheamountof$120,000thattheCommission3
Add a Comment