They may not want the money, but money is the leverage and remedy available

DannyDuberstein said:

---

They may not want the money, but money is the remedy available

---

Right or wrong, thats just the way it is.

And quite frankly, if they misled folks, they have no business being in this business. Step 1 to "make it safe" is getting them out. Period. You do that by $$$

Im Gipper said:

---

With all due respect, I understand it's not about money. But they aren't the first people to claim that. History shows that when push comes to shove, settlements happen because the "we don't want this to happen again" isn't an award one can get after litigation.

Maybe this time will be different. For their sage, closure is far more important IMO.

---

Fair enough. And I am not naive and know money always matters. But from what I have heard from reputable sources, this was gross negligence.

Dueling is against the law. How do you try to stop this negligence? And let's be honest, Mystic had monetary reasons to not change either.

i think a lot of the rather callous posts on here are due to a dislike of lawyers. Especially trial lawyers. And I get it. And it sickens me to think that people get rich off of tragedies. But when there is gross negligence involving the deaths of 8 y/o little girls, some justice and punishment has to occur if deserved. And I know of no other way.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

And quite frankly, if they misled folks, they have no business being in this business. Step 1 to "make it safe" is getting them out. Period. You do that by $$$

---

I think they misled themselves too. Incredible state of denial due to hubris. We are Camp Mystic, this will not happen to us.

derm is spot on on all of this

Curious how it is set up legally between the camp operation, land ownership, and family. Also curious as to how much debt has been taken out against it. Taking out loans against extremely valuable property is a common way to "pay yourself" while not having to pay income tax.

There's a Texas Monthly article that explains it to an extent. I think it's behind a paywall (most TM articles are), but a quick google search will get you to it.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Curious how it is set up legally between the camp operation, land ownership, and family. Also curious as to how much debt has been taken out against it. Taking out loans against extremely valuable property is a common way to "pay yourself" while not having to pay income tax.

---

Agree. And I bet the monied Mystic folks made the actual decisions about doing nothing after warned. And also curious about their connections with local city and county government who seemed to have given Mystic a ton of leeway.

And I wonder if all the folks who are so upset about trial lawyers making money off of a tragedy will be as irate if it is discovered that Mystic ignored warnings to make money keeping business as usual.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

The risks one takes of their own free will in camping near a River are evident and implicit. There is no duty on anyone else to be aware of weather or of the potential results of it. Every Mr really competent adult human being should understand that camping near a river carries sone small and voluntary risk of flooding consequences.

---

Some rivers much more than others.

There likely will be many lawsuits and it would not surprise me if some of the campgrounds change hands or possibly even close. I think any campground owner in an area like this would be going overboard to explain the risks, or go through the motions anyway. Times have changed because somebody somewhere will file a lawsuit. Even for roughnecks. When I worked derricks, safety was seldom brought up. I wore combat boots (no steel toe), and never wore a hardhat in the derrick (not that it would have done much good). We almost never put out the Geronimo line. Fast forward to today and if you read their daily reports, they always start the day with a safety meeting. Regardless of how serious they are with those meetings, or how serious they pretend to be, about safety, they do that to provide at least some protection in the legal arena.

Few warnings, or no warnings at all, can get you in trouble. You can argue the tenants should do their own due diligence, but in court, with the loss of lives, and I wouldn't like the chances of those being sued.

The flood on the Guadalupe in 1978 was worse than the 1998 flood and the 2002 Flood. At the Spring Branch gauge it measured 45.26 ft.

Here is a record of floods on the Guadalupe measured at Spring Branch Gauge.
https://water.noaa.gov/gauges/08167500

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Curious how it is set up legally between the camp operation, land ownership, and family. Also curious as to how much debt has been taken out against it. Taking out loans against extremely valuable property is a common way to "pay yourself" while not having to pay income tax.

---

Antitaxxer touched on it. The property is owned by a holding company called Natural Fountains Properties, Inc that is owned by the larger family, the Eastlands and their siblings. They inherited it. The camp operation is pretty much a separate company run solely by Dick and Tweety that pays NFP to use the property. I think there was also some sort of dividend each year paid to the property owners. The Texas Monthly article covers that intricacy. One of the disputes (among many) was that the larger family built a family cabin right next to the summer camp without clearing it with Dick and Tweety. Another dispute was that the compensation NFP was getting to host the camp was too small in relation to what the property is worth.

I have seen family farms end up this way. When the parent die, the farm isn't big enough to support all the siblings. One sibling wants to keep farming it, but the others are not in a hurry or they have other occupants off the farm. The sibling that stays behind leases the farm so that he can keep farming, it stays in the family, the other siblings get a small return. Sometimes it works, sometimes there are difficulties.

Kozmozag said:

---

Rv parks insurance will settle and rv park owner will have no say in the matter. All attorneys and judges work in a collusive manner to enrich themselves.

---

And I would not be surprised if some had no insurance. The insurance company will probably pay policy limits and dump it in the lap of the RV park owner. Considering the number of people who lost their lives, the potential claims will be many millions, or tens of millions, or more, above the policy limits.

I'm very familiar with the park. RV spaces right on the river, cabins right on the river, tents on the river and on an island. What could possibly have gone wrong. Kerr County is my home. I grew up on the river. I live on top of a hill. People should not sleep in the flood plain which is basically part of the river.

We had an issue up here at the ranch. Going to move the trip to 2nd or 3rd week in September. Looking forward to getting together!

Yes, just read that article. So NFP (the broader Eastland family/heirs) has the land and buildings and leases it to Camp Mystic (Dick/tweety owned) who runs the camp. Which that structure was largely born out of limiting liability. And apparently 15 years ago Stacy Eastland sued Dick because the rent Camp Mystic was paying NFP was supposed to increase in relation to the property value and Dick was just bumping it a flat $10k per year - ultimately with a difference of nearly $3mm in understated rent over the course of a decade or so.

That said, as family deaths occurred, Dick got a controlling interest in NFP, was firing/hiring the board, and some of his actions could have put the NFP vs Camp Mystic split in jeopardy from a liability perspective. The article is over 10 years old, so curious if there is anything he's done in the past 10 years that would undermine it

dermdoc said:

---

Marvin_Zindler said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Be prepared for a lot more, likely including some of the Camp Mystic families. Just a reality of insurance policies these days.

---

I will be shocked if Camp Mystic ever opens again.

---

I think you're going to be shocked.

---

In the same location? No way?

---

Lets step back and take an inventory of them Camp Mystic folks.

1. You have the widow Tweety who just lost her husband in the flood that destroyed her life's work, living with the trauma of the little girls that got washed away too. She is having to lawyer up in response to that. She has been butting heads with her siblings about all of it for the last 20-some years. If she survives all of this, she is faces with basically restarting this camp from scratch.

2. You have the other joint owners on the property with much less emotional investment in the camp who know the real value of the property.

3. You have an adjacent landowners with really deep pockets who would probably gladly be willing to expand his holdings and help out his neighbors who have gotten into a bind.


No offense to anyone, but I have seen this play out before.

Where did you see elsewhere that 27 kids die and the kid-centric business kept going?

What's your prediction on when it opens?

Im Gipper said:

---

Where did you see elsewhere that 27 kids die and the kid-centric business kept going?

What's your prediction on when it opens?

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3552957/replies/70645304

Burdizzo said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Marvin_Zindler said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Be prepared for a lot more, likely including some of the Camp Mystic families. Just a reality of insurance policies these days.

---

I will be shocked if Camp Mystic ever opens again.

---

I think you're going to be shocked.

---

In the same location? No way?

---

Lets step back and take an inventory of them Camp Mystic folks.

1. You have the widow Tweety who just lost her husband in the flood that destroyed her life's work, living with the trauma of the little girls that got washed away too. She is having to lawyer up in response to that. She has been butting heads with her siblings about all of it for the last 20-some years. If she survives all of this, she is faces with basically restarting this camp from scratch.

2. You have the other joint owners on the property with much less emotional investment in the camp who know the real value of the property.

3. You have an adjacent landowners with really deep pockets who would probably gladly be willing to expand his holdings and help out his neighbors who have gotten into a bind.


No offense to anyone, but I have seen this play out before.

---

No offense taken. It is surreal to me when posters complain about lawyers making money off of this tragedy when the Mystic folks made money off of ignoring warnings.
And I think Tweety and her husband were not the ones making decisions on how to respond to warnings. Like most of us, they loved the campers and were just doing their jobs.

Sorry! Misunderstood!

I was obviously referring to decision making adults.

one safe place said:

---

Kozmozag said:

---

Rv parks insurance will settle and rv park owner will have no say in the matter. All attorneys and judges work in a collusive manner to enrich themselves.

---

And I would not be surprised if some had no insurance. The insurance company will probably pay policy limits and dump it in the lap of the RV park owner. Considering the number of people who lost their lives, the potential claims will be many millions, or tens of millions, or more, above the policy limits.

---

that's what I was thinking too

the insurance policy only pays to its limits -- likely $1 MM maybe $5 MM -- but no more

and that won't be enough to cover all possible claims and settlements

one question...

if these lawsuits make it all the way to court...

will they be decided by a judge or civil jury?

The case against the RV park would likely be disposed on summary judgment, based on the precedent cited above, if it doesn't settle for nuisance value.

dermdoc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Agree. And Iknow several of the families. They are only interested in making sure that a Camp for kids could never again be so reckless and irresponsible. Most of them have plenty of money.

---

So they'd settle for just a covenant from the Camp to never reopen? Or to implement certain safety protocols?


Guessing that is not the case, nor would their attorney go for it. Hard to take 40% of "we won't do it again"

---

What stops another camp from opening up and being willfully negligent if there is no penalty for their behavior?

I was floored when I learned more of the information on how Mystic had responded to warnings in the past. Completely changed my mind about their responsibility.

---

I'm sure you have reviewed all of the information carefully, but is anything you're hearing potentially hearsay or is it first-hand information of what you know was presented to the owners of the camp prior to the summer?

If it wasn't them making the decisions, who would have been? Was there on-staff counsel for the camp?

Are they going to sue cloud seeding operations or jurisdictions who hired them? That would be interesting. Even if they only contributed a small % of the rain could they be liable?

Bob Knights Liver said:

---

Are they going to sue cloud seeding operations or jurisdictions who hired them? That would be interesting. Even if they only contributed a small % of the rain could they be liable?

---

There were no cloud seeding operations involved. Please stop spreading fake stories.

agdaddy04 said:

---

If it wasn't them making the decisions, who would have been? Was there on-staff counsel for the camp?

---

From what I can gather, the roads all lead to Dick Eastland. Between the Texas Monthly article and the events of that night, sure seems like the one in charge to me, on paper and in daily reality. Paid with his life, but seems that he took risks with a lot of lives

agdaddy04 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Agree. And Iknow several of the families. They are only interested in making sure that a Camp for kids could never again be so reckless and irresponsible. Most of them have plenty of money.

---

So they'd settle for just a covenant from the Camp to never reopen? Or to implement certain safety protocols?


Guessing that is not the case, nor would their attorney go for it. Hard to take 40% of "we won't do it again"

---

What stops another camp from opening up and being willfully negligent if there is no penalty for their behavior?

I was floored when I learned more of the information on how Mystic had responded to warnings in the past. Completely changed my mind about their responsibility.

---

I'm sure you have reviewed all of the information carefully, but is anything you're hearing potentially hearsay or is it first-hand information of what you know was presented to the owners of the camp prior to the summer?

---

I have not reviewed anything and am going on info provided by a trusted source.

dermdoc said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Marvin_Zindler said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Be prepared for a lot more, likely including some of the Camp Mystic families. Just a reality of insurance policies these days.

---

I will be shocked if Camp Mystic ever opens again.

---

I think you're going to be shocked.

---

In the same location? No way?

---

Lets step back and take an inventory of them Camp Mystic folks.

1. You have the widow Tweety who just lost her husband in the flood that destroyed her life's work, living with the trauma of the little girls that got washed away too. She is having to lawyer up in response to that. She has been butting heads with her siblings about all of it for the last 20-some years. If she survives all of this, she is faces with basically restarting this camp from scratch.

2. You have the other joint owners on the property with much less emotional investment in the camp who know the real value of the property.

3. You have an adjacent landowners with really deep pockets who would probably gladly be willing to expand his holdings and help out his neighbors who have gotten into a bind.


No offense to anyone, but I have seen this play out before.

---

No offense taken. It is surreal to me when posters complain about lawyers making money off of this tragedy when the Mystic folks made money off of ignoring warnings.
And I think Tweety and her husband were not the ones making decisions on how to respond to warnings. Like most of us, they loved the campers and were just doing their jobs.

---

Agree on that as well. I have been trying not to throw any one person under the bus up to this point. The TM article from ten years ago was informative, but it didn't paint a terribly rosy picture of Dick Eastland. All that said, I have seen how the media outlets can slant projections to fit a narrative, so I tried to keep that in mind. I have no doubts the Eastlands loved running the camp and help raising the girls, but from most accounts it was pretty lucrative too. Sometimes that can be overpowering. It is hard to sort all that out.

There's plenty of company for those that let money get ahead of the mission.

txags92 said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

Sharpshooter said:

---

Lawyers are a blight on society.

---

Somebody wanted to sue. The law still exists. Lawyers are just practicing their profession and recover whatever is just compensation for their client.

---

While taking 30-50% off the top for themselves? That Thomas J Henry is such a noble man with that fleet of private jets he loves to show off in his commercials, paid for by taking a big chunk of that "just compensation" for himself. As was said above, the whole "a tragedy happened so we need to make a bunch of lawyers rich" culture is absolutely disgusting to me.

---

I am sure that Mr. Lawyer would be happy to take the case on a fixed fee basis if you ware willing to front the cash for them, whether he wins or not. You could probably get something like 20% interest on your loan, as long as no one has to pay it back if Mr. Lawyer loses.

Contingency lawyers work for free unless they win. They have equity in the case. That means they get to share in the award.

There are plenty of lawyers out there that are super slimy. But, the contingency fee arrangement isn't, in and by itself, a bad thing.

Burdizzo said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Marvin_Zindler said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Be prepared for a lot more, likely including some of the Camp Mystic families. Just a reality of insurance policies these days.

---

I will be shocked if Camp Mystic ever opens again.

---

I think you're going to be shocked.

---

In the same location? No way?

---

Lets step back and take an inventory of them Camp Mystic folks.

1. You have the widow Tweety who just lost her husband in the flood that destroyed her life's work, living with the trauma of the little girls that got washed away too. She is having to lawyer up in response to that. She has been butting heads with her siblings about all of it for the last 20-some years. If she survives all of this, she is faces with basically restarting this camp from scratch.

2. You have the other joint owners on the property with much less emotional investment in the camp who know the real value of the property.

3. You have an adjacent landowners with really deep pockets who would probably gladly be willing to expand his holdings and help out his neighbors who have gotten into a bind.


No offense to anyone, but I have seen this play out before.

---

No offense taken. It is surreal to me when posters complain about lawyers making money off of this tragedy when the Mystic folks made money off of ignoring warnings.
And I think Tweety and her husband were not the ones making decisions on how to respond to warnings. Like most of us, they loved the campers and were just doing their jobs.

---

Agree on that as well. I have been trying not to throw any one person under the bus up to this point. The TM article from ten years ago was informative, but it didn't paint a terribly rosy picture of Dick Eastland. All that said, I have seen how the media outlets can slant projections to fit a narrative, so I tried to keep that in mind. I have no doubts the Eastlands loved running the camp and help raising the girls, but from most accounts it was pretty lucrative too. Sometimes that can be overpowering. It is hard to sort all that out.

---

I actually do not think it was the money. I think it was denial of the situation. Don't fix what is perceived to not be broken. I have been guilty of that myself and led to a supposedly wealthy trusted family friend/employee stealing over a million bucks from me.