Tag Archive for: Concourse

Defendants, Plaintiffs Latest Legal Wrangling in Elm Grove Lawsuits

When last I checked on the lawsuits brought by Elm Grove residents against Perry Homes, et. al., it was early August. The plaintiff’s lawyers had added Concourse Development to the lawsuits and the defendants’ lawyers were blaming everyone in sight, including the flood victims, for their problems.

In September, 2019, residents on Village Springs Dr. in Elm Grove we’re still living in trailers from the May 7th flood when they were struck again. Woodridge Village is immediately to the right, just out of frame. Shown here: sheet flow coming from Woodridge.

Since August, both defendants and plaintiffs have filed another 122 documents, totaling hundreds of pages on the Harris County District Clerk’s website. Some make entertaining reading.

Now, for instance, the defendants’ lawyers argue that they shouldn’t be forced to produce resumes for people being deposed because experience has nothing to do with qualifications.

So here’s what’s happened since the last update.

Key Developments in August

  • Double Oak Construction moved to quash plaintiffs’ “notice of intent” to take the oral depositions of ten individuals (8/17/2020)
  • Figure Four Partners, LTD, PSWA, Inc., and Perry Homes, LLC moved to quash deposition notices and subpoenas duces tecum (subpoenas for documents) (8/18/2020)
  • Concourse Development, Rebel Contractors, LJA Engineering, and Texasite LLC made similar but separate motions (8/19/2020)
  • Plaintiffs’ move to compel depositions (8/20/2020)
  • Defendants then requested an emergency status conference to discuss the motion to compel.
  • Judge Lauren Reeder denied the emergency conference (8/24/2020)
  • Defendants then contacted the plaintiff to set up depositions (8/25/2020). Depositions for 7 of 10 defendant employees were set up
  • Plaintiff’s lawyers sent a letter to the court revoking the request to compel depositions for those 7 individuals (8/27/2020)
  • Figure Four Partners objected to defendants’ request for production of documents, arguing among other things that the defendants had not adequately defined the word “person.” (8/31/2020). The defendants requested, among other things to see the defendants’ (plural) Joint Defense Agreement.
  • Defendants fired off a blistering response the same day (8/31/2020). They argued that Figure Four previously admitted that defendants had a joint-defense agreement, that Figure Four was engaged in a “blatant attempt to mislead the court,” and that Figure Four had not found one mutually agreeable deposition date since April 1.

September Developments

Double Oak moved to transfer venue out of Harris County. They claimed third parties, not they, produced plaintiffs’ damages. (9/11/2020)

Plaintiffs filed “responses to the responses” of Double Oak, Rebel Contractors, Concourse Development, Figure Four, PSWA, and Perry Homes. Plaintiffs, for the most part, allege that defendants failed to be specific in their responses. For instance, when defendants’ alleged that plaintiffs’ damages were the result of prior or pre-existing conditions, they failed to specify what those pre-existing conditions were.

Defendants also alleged that, because they “acted with due care” and “complied with all applicable federal, state, and local law,” defendants’ claims should be barred. Plaintiffs took exception to that claim. They pointed out that defendants do not name “one statute, regulation, or common law requirement that they complied with so that Plaintiff’s claims would be barred.”

October Developments

On October 16, 2020, plaintiffs filed a seventh amended petition with 14 exhibits totaling 273 pages.

One of the major changes: the inclusion of “trespass” as a cause of action. Paragraph 54 under Count 7 on page 23 says, “A defendant commits trespass to real property where there is an ‘unauthorized entry upon the land of another, and may occur when one enters—or causes something to enter—another’s property.’” Barnes v. Mathis, 353 S.W.3d 760, 764 (Tex. 2011).

Other sections of the amended petition appear to have minor changes and updates that address issues raised to date during the case. Rather than try to summarize them all here, I’ll simply provide a link to the amended petition.

Separately, Figure Four objected to the subpoena duces tecum for Richard Hale. Defendants had requested his resume and legal documents to prepare for his deposition (10/19/2020). Lawyers for Figure Four claim Mr. Hale’s experience is not relevant. That seems to asking defendants to take a lot on faith! Figure Four lawyers also claim that by asking for papers that Mr. Hale used to prepare for his deposition that defendants are violating attorney/client privilege.

Figure Four also filed an objection to Taylor Gunn’s subpoena duces tecum. They claimed the subpoena wasn’t a subpoena, that his experience was not relevant, and that the request violated attorney/client privilege.

Rebel and Double Oak also objected to documents they were expected to produce, claiming they didn’t have enough notice (10/26/2020).

November, December Developments

In November, not much happened. Defendants filed documents showing that they had a “Rule 11” agreement with Concourse. A rule 11 agreement refers to Rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedures. Rule 11 says that an agreement between lawyers in a case is enforceable if the agreement is: A) in writing and B) filed in the papers of the court or C) unless it be made in open court and entered in the record.

In December, LJA filed an objection and response to the plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum for Taylor Baumgartner. LJA also argued that the subpoena violated attorney/client privilege. However, Baumgartner agreed to bring his resume to the deposition.

Status of Depositions, Discovery, Start of Trial

Both sides have done significant written discovery. Estimates range upwards of 20,000 pages of documents produced to date.  Depositions reportedly started in late October. Lawyers will schedule more in January/February.

The trial still appears to be scheduled for the two weeks beginning September 20, 2021. But that could be pushed back by COVID concerns.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 12/2/2020

1191 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 440 since Imelda

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

More Delays, Denials, and Victim-Blaming in Elm Grove Lawsuit

Defendants in the Elm Grove flood lawsuit have filed more than 20 new documents with the Harris County District Clerk since mid-July. The big news: The addition of Concourse Development, LLC to the lawsuit has pushed back the trial date from March to September next year. It has also triggered more victim-blaming plus claims and cross-claims among the defendants.

Background

In 2019, runoff from 268 clear-cut acres under development by Perry Homes contributed to flooding in Elm Grove, not once, but twice. Victims sued two subsidiaries of Perry Homes who were developing the property. They also sued several contractors, and LJA, the engineering company.

Screen capture from video taken by Cogdill family during May 7th flood of 2019 shows water streaming out of Woodridge Village into Elm Grove.

In June 2020, lawyers for plaintiffs added Perry Homes and Concourse Development to the lawsuit.

Perry promptly responded, blaming the victims for their own damages.

Perry Homes is the parent company of subsidiaries PSWA and Figure Four Partners, who were originally sued.

Many Elm Grove Families had to be rescued.

Concourse Development bought the property now known as Woodridge Village on 1/12/2018 and sold it to Perry Homes six days later.

Five developers owned the Woodridge Property before Figure Four Partners, LTD, a Perry Homes subsidiary. Concourse owned it for six days before flipping it to Figure Four. Source: Montgomery County Appraisal District.

Concourse is also the developer of Woodridge Forest, immediately west of Woodridge Village. Approximately one year before the purchase and quick sale, Concourse reportedly told Woodridge Forest residents at a community meeting that the Woodridge Village property would never be developed because it was “just too wet.” USGS classified large parts of the area as wetlands and multiple streams converged there.

Where Case Stands Now

The addition of Concourse to the lawsuit prompted multiple requests by Concourse and other defendants to delay the trial again – until September 20, 2021. Concourse said it didn’t have enough time for discovery and preparation. Given that the case was already almost a year old, Concourse claimed it had a lot of catching up to do. In their response to the plaintiffs’ sixth amended petition, Concourse also pointed some fingers at other defendants. One then filed a cross-claim against Concourse (see below).

Concourse Blames Victims and Almost Everyone in Sight

Defendant Concourse Development LLC denied each and every claim in Plaintiff’s latest petition. This is called a General Denial.

Concourse then lists eight pages of defenses. They repeat the phrase “Pleading further, and in the alternative, if such be necessary and subject to the foregoing pleas and without waiving same…” a grand total of twenty times. That means, “If the general denial doesn’t work, we reserve the right to claim X. And if X doesn’t work, we reserve the right to claim Y. Etc.”

More Than 20 Defenses Asserted

With that as a preface, Concourse also pleaded that:

  1. Concourse was not the immediate or sole cause of the flooding and damages.
  2. “Acts, omissions, fault, negligence and other conduct of the Plaintiffs” were the immediate and sole cause, in whole or in part, of the flooding and their damages. (They do not explain why they believe that, though.) Said another way, the victims caused their own damages.
  3. Other defendants caused the damages.
  4. New and independent third parties caused the damages.
  5. Other people caused the damages.
  6. Concourse had no obligation to the victims.
  7. Concourse’s conduct was reasonably prudent.
  8. The flooding was an unavoidable accident.
  9. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages.
  10. Their contract (presumably with Perry) gives them indemnity.
  11. Any payments made by other parties (not a part of the litigation) to Defendants should offset any liability Concourse may have. (Presumably, they’re talking about insurance companies.)
  12. Any award against Concourse must be reduced by the percentage of fault attributable to others, including the Plaintiffs themselves, and third parties.
  13. Flooding was caused by an intervening, but unspecified cause.
  14. Plaintiffs’ claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
  15. To the extent that Plaintiffs allege lost wages or loss of earning capacity, recovery should be limited to post-tax earnings or net earnings.
  16. Plaintiffs’ damages resulted from prior or pre-existing conditions over which Concourse had no control and did not cause.
  17. God caused the damages.
  18. Any punitive damages awarded in the case should be reduced in proportion to Plaintiffs’ own negligence.
  19. Plaintiffs’ claims should be barred because Concourse acted with due care and complied with all laws and regulations.
  20. Plaintiffs’ assumed the risk that resulted in their “alleged” damages.
  21. Punitive damages violate the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US. Constitution and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
  22. Punitive damages violate Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the Texas Constitution, and the United States Constitution.
  23. Prejudgment interest should be limited under Texas Law.
  24. Plaintiffs have not fulfilled all the conditions necessary to maintain the lawsuit.
  25. The One Satisfaction Rule should govern any awards.

The last point means that a plaintiff should only recover once for a particular injury. It applies when several defendants commit the same act or when multiple defendants commit different acts that result in one injury.

Defendants Now Fighting Among Themselves

If many of those points sound contradictory, they are. But Concourse has covered all its bases.

In #3 above, Concourse pointed the finger of blame at other defendants in the case. Evidently, Double Oak Construction, Inc., one of the other defendants didn’t like that. So…

On 8/6/2020, Double Oak filed a cross-claim against Concourse. Double Oak alleges that Concourse should be held directly liable to plaintiffs for any and ALL damages they suffered. Double Oak also wants a jury to decide Concourse’s percentage of liability.

Why is that? Double Oak alleges that “…the Developer Defendants hired Concourse on May 8, 2019, the day after the extreme weather event on May 7, 2019, to inspect the Development and that Concourse did not advise the Developer Defendants to make any changes to the detention.” Nor, they claim, did Concourse advise Double Oak or the other Contractor Defendants to make any changes to their work after the inspection.

Therefore, Double Oak further alleges, Concourse is liable to Plaintiffs for damages and any award levied against Double Oak.

Double Oak Objects to Concourse Production of Documents

In its response to the Plaintiffs, Concourse also gave “notice to all parties that any and all documents produced during discovery may be used against such parties at any pre-trial proceeding and/or trial … without the necessity of authenticating the document.”

Double Oak objected to this. Double Oak claims it doesn’t know what specific documents Concourse intends to use, therefore Double Oak is handicapped in its defense.

Trying to anticipate every single document produced by any party would cause an undue hardship, claims Double Oak. Double Oak reserved its right to authenticate any and all documents that Concourse produces as part of discovery.

Woodridge MUD Fights Subpoena for Documents

In other news on the case, the Woodridge Municipal Utility District (MUD) is fighting production of documents that have been subpoenaed.

The Woodridge MUD claims that the Plaintiffs’ subpeona is “overly broad and seeks to inquire into matters subject to the attorney-client privilege.” They also claim that some of the requested documents involve matters discussed during executive sessions of the Woodridge MUD board.

The MUD also refuses to produce documents anywhere other than at the offices of its counsel.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 8/10/2020

1077 Days after Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Elm Grove Lawsuit Names Perry, Concourse Development As New Defendants; Trial Delayed

Attorneys for owners of 304 flooded homes in Elm Grove have named Perry Homes, LLC and Concourse Development, LLC as additional defendants in their lawsuit. Plaintiff’s lawyers filed their 287-page, sixth amended petition on 6/16/2020. Today, they also filed a request for a new trial date of 3/1/2021.

For the complete 287-page filing, click here. For a summary, read below.

New Information May Tie Perry, Concourse Directly to Floods

Based on allegations made in the lawsuit, it appears that attorneys may now have evidence that Concourse (the developer of Woodridge Forest) was also part owner of Woodridge Village. Wording within the allegations also suggests that Perry Homes was directly involved in the actions of its subsidiaries PSWA and Figure Four Partners, which in turn were telling contractors what to do and not to do.

This is potentially good news for plaintiffs because companies, such as PSWA and Figure Four are only subsidiaries of Perry. Such subsidiaries often act as shell companies that shield the parent company from liability. With few assets, the subsidiaries simply declare bankruptcy if they lose a large lawsuit. Then, life goes on as normal for the parent company. However…

Both Perry Homes and Concourse Development have substantial assets. Perry claims to be close to a billion dollar company.

Concourse developed the adjacent Woodridge Forest, where Perry also built homes. It bought Woodridge Village land and then held it for six days before selling it to Perry. Evidently, they didn’t sell their entire interest. Before the May 7th flood, Concourse bragged about its role in Woodridge Village. But after the flood, the company removed all mentions of Woodridge from its web site.

Screen Capture from Concourse Development website before lawsuits filed.

Allegations in Sixth Amended Petition

The big news: The plaintiff’s sixth amended petition now names Perry and Concourse as additional defendants. Previous petitions named only Perry subsidiaries, contractors and LJA Engineering.

In the new petition, defendants allege that:

  • LJA used an outdated version of Montgomery County’s Drainage Criteria manual when it designed drainage for Woodridge Village.
  • Figure Four failed to properly review the plans, catch the error, oversee LJA, or make construction decisions.
  • As a group, Figure Four, PSWA, Perry Homes and Concourse (referred to as “Developer Defendants” in the amended petition) hired contractors and directed them to fill in existing creeks and drainage channels, and to remove a levee or berm on the south side of Taylor Gully that had previously protected Elm Grove. The existence of this berm was not mentioned in LJA’s engineering plans, they say.
  • Even after the first flood on May 7th, when developers were aware of the danger, they failed to take corrective actions that would have prevented the September 19th flood.
  • As a direct consequence of their actions and inactions, the developers flooded hundreds of homes in Elm Grove.
  • The inactions of Perry and Concourse following the May 7th flood justify punitive damages.

Key Elements of Agreement Between Developers

The petition also claims that the four developer defendants entered into an agreement that called for them to:

  • Make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality and quantity of work
  • Be responsible for the techniques and sequences of construction, and safety precautions
  • Take responsibility AND liability for the contractors’ failure to construct the project in accordance with the contract documents.

However, the plaintiffs also accuse the developer defendants (through negligence or omissions) of:

  1. Failing to make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the work
  2. Failing to properly monitor the techniques and sequences of construction or the safety precautions to ensure Elm Grove would not flood during construction
  3. Failing to ensure the contractors performed the construction work in accordance with the contract documents
  4. Failing to incorporate drainage studies prior to initiating construction on the Development
  5. Failing to properly direct and supervise the means, methods, and techniques of the sequence in which the contractors performed the work on the Development
  6. Removing drainage from the Development
  7. Removing a levee and/or berm from the Development
  8. Failing to implement a proper construction schedule
  9. Failing to follow the construction schedule
  10. Blocking the drainage channels
  11. Filling in existing drainage channels
  12. Failing to properly install box culverts
  13. Failing to create temporary drainage channels
  14. Failing to allow adequate drainage after construction
  15. Failing to install silt barriers
  16. Allowing the Development to force rainfall toward Plaintiffs’ homes’
  17. Diverting surface water towards Plaintiffs’ homes
  18. Failing to pay proper attention
  19. Failing to provide notice or warning
  20. Failing to have a proper rain event action plan
  21. Failing to have a proper storm water pollution prevention plan
  22. Failing to follow a proper storm water pollution prevention plan
  23. Failing to coordinate activities and/or conduct
  24. Failing to supervise the activities of the Development and engineering
  25. Failing to instruct in proper construction and/or drainage requirements
  26. Failing to train in proper construction and/or drainage requirements
  27. Failure to review engineering plans
  28. Failing to comply with the Terracon Consultants, Inc. geotechnical report
  29. Failing to construct the emergency release channel
  30. Failing to timely implement the detention ponds
  31. Allowing inadequate construction to take place
  32. Failing to hire an adequate engineer to implement the project plan
  33. Failing to protect runoff from flooding homes
  34. Failing to protect Elm Grove from flooding during construction.

Basis for Exemplary Damage Claim

Paragraph 42 contains some of the strongest language in the complaint. It alleges that the Developer Defendants knew of the risks, and both the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others. The complaint asserts, “These acts and omissions were more than momentary thoughtlessness, inadvertence, or error of judgment. Rather, the Developer Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.”

“Such acts and/or omissions,” the paragraph continues, “were a proximate cause of the flooding and the resulting injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs hereby seek an award of exemplary damages.”

Having said all that, the plaintiffs seek BOTH ordinary and exemplary damages (defined below).

Location of plaintiffs’ flooded homes in relation to Perry/Concourse property.

8 Defendants, 9 Counts, 2 Floods, 3 Degrees of Negligence

Altogether, the petition alleges nine counts against eight defendants in two floods. Spelling out who is being sued for what and why involves a lot of overlap and redundancy. But some of the Counts specify subsets of defendants, floods, allegations and degrees of negligence. So you may want to read the entire document.

The petition splits the defendants into three groups: Contractors, Developers, and LJA Engineering, with specific charges against each. The basis for charges sometimes varies also. For instance, charges against LJA include (in addition to many of those above) failure to:

  • Adequately report the modeling
  • Use the correct hydrology method
  • Adequately model the development
  • Notify the developers and contractors of the importance of the existing berm.

Plaintiffs say LJA was aware of the risks, but nevertheless proceeded with willful and conscious indifference to the rights safety and welfare of the victims.

As a result, plaintiffs are suing LJA for negligence, negligence per se and gross negligence for BOTH floods.

Differences Between Degrees of Negligence

Black’s Law Dictionary describes the differences:

  • Negligence is the failure to do something which a reasonable and prudent man would do, or doing something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do.
  • Negligence Per Se is the form of negligence that results from violation of a statute. The violation of a public duty enjoined by law for the protection of people and property. So palpably opposed to the dictates of common prudence that no careful person would be guilty of it.
  • Gross Negligence is the intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another. It is a conscious and voluntary act of omission which is likely to result in grave injury when in the face of clear and present danger of which the defendant is aware.

Nuisance Claim

In addition to negligence, plaintiffs also claim nuisance…”When Defendants unlawfully diverted … water onto Plaintiffs’ homes.”

Black’s Law Dictionary defines nuisance as “…that activity which arises from unreasonable, unwarranted or unlawful use by a person of his own property, working obstruction or injury to right of another…and producing such material annoyance, inconvenience and discomfort that law will presume resulting damage.”

Seeking Damages, Exemplary/Punitive Damages

The ordinary damages, plaintiffs claim, consist of one or more of the following:

  1. Cost of repairs to real property;
  2. Cost of replacement or fair market value of personal property lost, damaged, or destroyed during such event;
  3. Loss of use of real and personal property;
  4. Diminution of market value of Plaintiffs’ properties;
  5. Loss of income and business income;
  6. Consequential costs incurred, inclusive of but not limited to alternative living conditions or accommodations and replacement costs;
  7. Mental anguish and/or emotional distress;
  8. Prejudgment interest;
  9. Post judgment interest;
  10. Attorneys’ fees
  11. Costs of Court.

However, as a result of alleged gross negligence, plaintiffs also seek exemplary damages as punishment. Black’s Law Dictionary defines exemplary damages as “Damages on an increased scale awarded to a plaintiff over and above actual or ordinary damages, where wrong done to a plaintiff was aggravated by circumstances of violence, oppression, malice, fraud, or wanton and wicked conduct.”

Defendants’ Responses Not Yet Filed

As of this writing, the Harris County District Clerk’s website does not show responses filed by either Perry or Concourse to new allegations.

March 1 Preferential Trial Date Requested

Because of the number of plaintiffs, expert witnesses, defendants and law firms involved in this case, the plaintiffs have requested a “preferential trial setting” of March 1, 2021. A preferential trial setting eliminates the possibility of numerous continuances due to scheduling conflicts between the court, parties, attorneys and witnesses.

The plaintiffs have also requested a proposed Amended Docket Control Order that shows alternative dispute resolution (mediation) happening on 1/29/2021.

Net: If the judge accepts the new timetable, it will likely be another 7 to 8 months before this case sees any resolution.

As new developments happen, read about them here.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 6/19/2020

1025 Days since Hurricane Harvey and 274 since Imelda

What Went Wrong, Part V: How Woodridge Village “Soiled” Perry Homes’ Reputation

Before Perry Homes bought the ill-fated land now known as Woodridge Village, it hired a company called Terracon to sample soils and submit a geotechnical analysis. Their objective: to see whether the land was suitable for residential development. Perry also hired LJA Engineering to analyze drainage. However, it appears that LJA did not consider Terracon’s findings when it modeled runoff (see Section 1.4 of LJA’s report).

LJA also assumed that “sandy loam” covered the entire site when the National Resources Conservation Service soil database shows sandy loam covers only 60 percent. The Terracon report, however, never even mentions “sandy loam.”

Different Findings Could Have Skewed Runoff Analysis

Both the different characterizations of soils and their extent could have skewed the results of LJA’s runoff analysis.

LJA said the soil was “fine sandy loam,” everywhere, period. Terracon bored holes to 20 feet at four locations and found mostly clay-based soils. Terracon did, however, find “sandy silt” with “clay pockets” in the first foot of ONE of their borings.

According to the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), clay, sand and loam absorb rainfall at vastly different rates that can approach or even exceed 10X.

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA

The NRCS site above does show “sandy loam” on 60% of Perry Homes’ property. However, the NRCS sampling technique usually involves a shovel. They appear to classify primarily surface soils (not surprising for the Department of AGRICULTURE).

That’s why NRCS clearly states that the infiltration rates above only apply to the first two inches of rain during an event. After that, the water may percolate down to another, less permeable layer of soil, such as the clay that Terracon found. At that point, fully saturated ground could force additional rainfall hitting the surface to pond or, if the land slopes, run off. That’s exactly what happened on May 7th and September 19th this year when Elm Grove flooded from Woodridge Village runoff.

According to NRCS, “Soil survey interpretations are rarely suitable for such onsite evaluations as homesites without further evaluations at the specific site.” 

But Terracon’s preliminary investigation sampled only four widely spaced spots at the perimeter of the property. None coincided with the locations of planned detention ponds, known wetlands, or streets. Only one even came close to a future home site. And the Montgomery County Engineer’s office has no record of Terracon performing additional work on the Woodridge site.

Terracon’s sample locations.

Also note that while NRCS shows sandy loam on 60% of the site, LJA assumes uniform distribution everywhere. That could also have skewed LJA’s computer modeling. NRCS showed that another 33% of the site (see below) contained soil consistent with wetlands. Wetlands don’t typically absorb water, often because of clay underlying them.

Wetland-Type Soils on ONE THIRD of Property “Overlooked”

A top geologist retired from one of the world’s largest oil companies sampled the soil at one of Terracon’s borehole sites shortly after the May 7th storm and confirmed Terracon’s findings as to surface soil type – mostly clay.

He also says, “The presence of clay close to the surface can cause water to pond and lead to the formation of wetlands wherever you find depressions in the land.” And in fact, the USGS National Wetlands Inventory shows extensive wetlands on the northern portion of the site.

USGS National Wetlands Inventory map of Perry Home’s site.

It’s not clear where LJA found its soil information; they don’t specify. But if it was from NRCS, they should have been alarmed by the presence of hydric topsoils on ONE THIRD of the property. Hydric soils are one of the defining ingredients of wetlands. Compare with map below, taken from the NRCS site. SosA and SouA are soil types typical of wetlands.

SosA, Sorter-Tarkington complex, 0 1 percent slopes {Hydric, with inclusions that are non-hydric} and SouA, Sorter-Urban land complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes {Hydric, with inclusions that are non-hydric} comprise approximately 29% and 3.6% of the site respectively.

Building homes over wetlands is dangerous because shifting soil can crack foundations. Wetlands also typically serve as collection points for water.

But LJA never mentions wetlands and the Terracon borehole sampling sites came nowhere near the wetlands on the property. Terracon spaced them widely around the perimeter as you can see from the site map with the red lines above.

Groundwater Levels Not Mentioned In LJA Drainage Analysis

LJA, had it read the Terracon report, might have also been concerned by the discovery of ground water at 15 feet, more than a half mile from Taylor Gully. At Taylor Gulley, contractors hit ground water at about 10 feet when excavating the S2 detention pond. But the pond was supposed to hold 15 feet of runoff. That means ground water reduced its capacity by a third. Even worse, a pond by N3 has had standing water near the ground SURFACE for months!

Note the man-made rectangular pond in the upper right. It has been that full since it first appeared in Google Earth satellite images almost a year ago. That’s not a good sign for another area designated to hold a major detention pond (N3).

That means these ponds will never be able to achieve their promised detention capacities with their current dimensions. There just isn’t enough depth. Engineers measure detention capacity from the top of any standing water, not the bottom of the pond.

More Curiosities Re: Testing and Reports

How strange that LJA’s drainage analysis never once mentions the words “water table” or “groundwater”! Especially when detention ponds are a central feature of the report and mentioned 42 times. LJA never mentions “retention” ponds once, although J. Carey Gray, the high-powered litigator representing Perry Homes, called the ponds that in his letter to the City. For the record, detention ponds have no permanent standing water; retention ponds do.

The first thing you notice about the Terracon report: the title says PRELIMINARY. Terracon also put “preliminary” at the top of every page. And repeated it 35 times within the report. Sometimes as many as three times in a single paragraph. Terracon also specifically recommended several followup tests. But if they were done, the Montgomery County Engineers office says it has no record of them.

Five Previous Developers Sold Site Rather than Develop It

At Thanksgiving Dinner yesterday, we had three engineers at the table. I posed the question, “Do you ever reach a point in projects when you say to yourself, “We shouldn’t do this,” as opposed to “How can we do this?”

The general consensus: There’s always a way to engineer a solution…if you don’t consider cost.

I wonder if that’s why five previous developers who owned this site didn’t do anything with it. They included Lennar, Kingwood 575, Reddy Partnership/Kingwood, Woodbridge 268, and Concourse Development.

It could be that they were just holding it and hoping to flip it at a higher price. Land generally appreciates faster than the rate of inflation. But it could also be that they investigated the cost of developing it more closely than Perry Homes did.

Below: the sales histories for the two major pieces of land that comprise Woodridge Village.

Source: Montgomery County Appraisal District
Source: Montgomery County Appraisal District

Of all the curiosities associated with this development, the sales history ranks near the top. Concourse held the property for less than a week before selling it to Perry Homes’ subsidiary, Figure Four Development LTD.

Perry Homes even commissioned and received Terracon’s Geotechnical report BEFORE Concourse bought the property. But that’s the subject for another post at another time. What was that about?

The important thing to note for now: When you’re selling dirt, it pays to know what kind of dirt you’re selling.

As Perry Homes Drags Out Court Case, It Could Incur More Liability

The once-proud Perry Homes is now buried under a mountain of law suits alleging that their actions flooded hundreds of homes…not once, but twice…in six months.

As Perry Homes drags these lawsuits out, Kathy Perry Britton could expose her father’s company to enough liability to bring it down. Can you imagine how a jury would react if Elm Grove flooded a third time when so many regulations have been flaunted? And when Perry has made no further attempt at mitigation since early August? I can.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 11/29/2019 with help from Jeff Miller

842 Days after Hurricane Harvey and 71 after Imelda

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.