Often when controversial issues enter the courts, a virtual firewall is erected between the litigants and the taxpayers. Legal proceedings are assumed to be "too complex" for the general public, and they are simply ignored and go unreported until final rulings are issued.

In the case of the state of Oklahoma Commissioners of the Land Office vs Pointe Vista Development, alleging breach of contract for failure to timely construct a hotel and convention center, Oklahoma County District Judge Roger Stuart issued a ruling in May. It was recently posted on line and is clear enough for any reader to understand.

Pointe Vista filed a motion to exclude all remedies except "specific performance" in regard to the state's legal recourse to the developer's failure to produce a hotel by May 28, 2014. Specific performance means that the court can order Pointe Vista to proceed with the construction of the hotel within some "reasonable" time frame.

Two additional remedies besides specific performance were requested by the attorneys representing the state land commission. Those remedies included (1) Pointe Vista's payment of court costs for the ongoing legal action, and (2) the State's right to rescission, which means the right to rescind or void the original 2008 land purchase agreements with Pointe Vista as if they had never happened. In that case, the 758 acres which were part of Lake Texoma State Park would be returned to the state of Oklahoma and the public trust.

The state's legal counsel from Conner & Winters requested these two additional remedies in the event that "specific performance," which was the only remedy provided in Pointe Vista's original land purchase agreements, turned out to be practically meaningless. Pointe Vista had less than one month to complete the hotel by the date required in their purchase agreements. So, even if they were ordered by the court to "specifically perform" that completion, it could not be completed on time to meet the terms of their contract. State attorneys argued that Pointe Vista had not yet even begun construction, and that that was Pointe Vista's fault and not the fault of the state.

In response to Pointe Vista's motion to dismiss the additional remedies, Judge Roger Stuart asked their attorneys whether the additional remedies could be readdressed by the state in a year if it turns out that "specific performance" does not currently provide a meaningful remedy under state law. Pointe Vista attorneys responded that the additional remedies could not be added to the state's remedies a year later, so the judge denied Pointe Vista's motion to dismiss the additional two remedies.

Stuart also ordered that the discovery process be initiated and only address the issue of specific performance at this time, to limit the focus of the discovery process. [See the attached "Journal Entry dated 6/20/2014]

On May 28, a Pointe Vista spokesman claimed the following in a KTEN TV News report: “Even though the current litigation with the CLO limits our ability to comment at this time, we are pleased with the judge’s recent decision limiting the sole remedy to specific performance and determining a reasonable time for Pointe Vista to complete the development." This is a misrepresentation of Judge Stuart's ruling, which basically states the opposite.

Contrary Pointe Vista's statement to KTEN News, Judge Stuart did not limit the state's remedy to "specific performance" of the original land purchase agreements. Stuart very clearly denied Pointe Vista's motion to dismiss the additional remedies, and then issued an order limiting the upcoming discovery process to address only specific performance during this phase of the litigation.

While Pointe Vista ultimately seeks that ruling from the court, there has been no ruling limiting the state to the single remedy, and ordering the developer to complete the hotel within a reasonable time. It is irresponsible for Pointe Vista to attempt to deceive the public in regard to this ruling by Judge Stuart. It would appear that Pointe Vista believes corporate free speech includes the right to deceive the public.

Stephen Willis, Kingston, OK

References:

http://www.kten.com/story/25635885/pointe-vista-responds-to-todays-deadline-for-substantial-completion-of-hotel-convention-center

See 6/20/2014 "Journal Entry" in State of Oklahoma v Pointe Vista

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?number=CJ-2014-152&db=Oklahoma&submitted=true