ORDER NO. 19825
NOTICE THAT THE COUNTY WILL FOLLOW THE DISTRICT
COURT'S DECISION ON AN ALLEDGED COUNTY ROAD
IF A NON COUNTY ROAD RULING IS MADE IN THE
INGENHUETT, SIEBERT, SHAW CASE, CAUSE NO. 90-298-B
On this the 20th day of September 1990 came on to be
considered by Commissioners' Court Cause No. 90-298-B,
Mar,jurie Ingenhuett, et al vs. Doris Siebert and Dorothy
Shaw, in the District Court as to whether an alleged county
road is public or private.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Holekamp, seconded by
Commissioner Morgan, the Court unanimously approved that the
County will follow the District Court's decision if a non
county road ruling is made in the Ingenhuett, Siebert, Shaw
case, Cause No.l 90-298-B.
• PEASE FURNISH ONE ORI MINA AND V N OPI OF THIS R Q T AND D IIMFNTS
TO BE REVIEWED BY THE OURT
MADE BY: C~`l1 (~~_ I~ OFFICE: -`~-~-~--_?~ r~-s w e"~ ~~
MEETING DATE: ~"'`x'T TIME PREFERRED:
SUBJECT: (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC): ~X
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: ~S~-.,
IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: ~ "J"~~
Time for submitting this request For Court to assure that the matter Is posted in
accordance with Article 6252- 1 7 1s as follows:
• Meetings held on second Monday: 12:00 P. M. previous Wednesday
• Meetings held on Thursdays: 5:00 P. M. previous Thursday.
If preferable, Agenda Requests may be made on off Ice stationery with the above
Information attached.
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON: ~ "l2 ~ LC' ~ ..2; i ~ ~.i~, .
All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Off Ice to determine 1f
adequate Information has been prepared For the Court's formal consideration and action at
time of Court meetings. Your cooperation well be appreciated and contribute towards
your request being addressed at the earliest opportunity.
H. RI'I'~fAN DONS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
313 Earl Garrett
P.O. Box 472
Kerrville, Texas 78029-0472
TEL. (512) 896-8383
September 6, 1990
Mr. Stan Reid
Assistant County Attorney
Kerr County, Texas
323 Earl Garrett
Kerrville, Texas 78028
FAX (512) 8963535
RE: Cause No. 90-298-B - Marjorie Ingenhuett, et al vs. Doris
Siebert and Dorothy Shaw. Our File No. 2049
Dear Stan:
This letter is in follow-up to our discussion of August 21,
1990, after the pretrial hearing which was conducted on the
Defendant's Motion to require the joinder of Kerr County
("County") in the above referenced lawsuit as a necessary party.
This letter will confirm our concerns that without the joinder of
the County as a necessary party, a judgment in the above refer-
enced cause would not be binding on the County and may subject
our clients to additional future litigation if the County should
decide subsequently to pursue this matter on its own behalf. It
is my understanding that you were to discuss these concerns with
the Commissioners and would recommend favorably that the Commis-
sioners agree in writing to be bound by the decision of the court
as to the character of the road i.e., public or private, and
further agree not to file or instigate a future lawsuit request-
ing that the road in question be declared public in the event
that the Court in this cause renders judgment declaring that the
road is not a public road.
In the interest of our clients both Richard and I are con-
cerned with the potential for future litigation should the Court
rule that the road is not public. AS I stated during our conver-
sation it is our desire that all individuals with "interest" be
bound by the judgment to be rendered in this cause. I realize
that you have assured verbally that the County has no desire to
maintain the road, does not want the road to be declared public
.and has no present intention of filing any subsequent litigation
to request a finding that the road is public; however, personnel
and commissioners change and with time the attitude of the cur-
rent Court may change. Consequently, if we cannot be thusly
assured in writing by the County we may have to request the
intervention of the County to insure that the judgment in this
cause is banding on all parties which we feel are infact neces-
sary. Please understand that we do not wish to resort to this
action especially since the County does not want to incurr any
additional litigation expenses, however, we must take all appro-
priate action that we feel is in the best interest of our
clients. If an agreement in writing as above described, satis-
factory to Richard and I, can be achieved, then we feel that it
would be unnecessary to cause the County to be joined in this
matter.
Please advise at your earliest convenience.
HRJ/mrh
GDST7.h29/30
cc: Hon. Richard Mosty
Doris Siebert
Dorothy Shaw