Replies

The Amazing Poohbah asked me to try to explain Equity. I am NOT admitted to the Florida Bar, but here goes.

Courts are generally Courts of Law and Equity.

Law (Civil Law) deals with contract law among other things, civil rights, damages, torts, etc.

But in this case, let's look at equity. Let's say you and I make a contract for you to sell me your brand new Lexus GS 430 for $100.00. Maybe you broke up with a boy (girl ) friend in the back seat of the car, and it only brings back bad memories, or you have decided you hate the color, etc. For whatever irrational reason you sign a written contract with me to sell it for $100. PS. Gee, thanks!

The four elements of a contract are OFFER, ACCEPTANCE, CONSIDERATION and PERFORMANCE.

I made the Offer.
You Accepted it.
I gave you the Consideration. (the $100)
I arrived to pickup the car, did the paperwork, etc. (Performance) but you wise up won't give up the car. I sue for "my" car.

We may have an entirely valid contract, but a court will most probably invalidate the deal.

Why? On grounds of "Equity." It's inequitable. It's so grossly unfair as to be unenforceable. Had the price been $25,000, I might have had a shot at it, but $100, no way. Such inequity is against public policy, bad for the body politic a a whole.

The parents should have been arguing more Equity from day one.

For example, religious freedom is important and specifically constituionally guaranteed.... but if a 4 year old son of a Jehova's Witness couple is taken to the Emergency Room, and doctors determine the child needs a transfusion to survive, the courts will quickly give the doctors a court order to proceed with the transfusion.

Why?

The child's assumed desire to live trumps the parents religious rights. To let a 4 year old child die because of what the parents believe is simply inequitable. That concept is so strong that most hospitals, in a critical situation, would give the blood transfusion, even without a court order.

That happened a few years ago. The parents sued. The case was quickly dismissed after the three attending physicians testified, that in their medical opinion, the child would have died without the transfusion.

In dismissing the case, the Judge asked the parents, "What are you suing for? Assault with intent to heal?"

The parents needed to have a pro-Terri guardian appointed. Not one in favor of the husband, or in favor of them, but in favor of Terri's assumed right to live.

That guardian, not the parents, but the guardian then could have brought an Equity case, saying, "we don't care who the closest next of kin is, she probably desires to live and she deserves to live."

Fed courts are more likely to give you a shot on equity in a case like this. They sould have gotten it to the Atlanta CCOA!

There is another thing that could have been done. In cases where more than just the "law" is involved, and you have conflicting testimony (in this case about her health and prognosis) the court will sometimes appoint a Special Master to make a report to the judge. This is someone, usually a lawyer with special expertise in the field, in this case, perhaps one of the MD - JD people in this area. I remember a case involving a pilot's suing the FAA to reverse the loss of his medical certificate. The judge appointed a Special Master who was part time lawyer and who also happened to be a full time American Airlines captain!

The family had three major peroblems from day one.

1. They got out-lawyered big time.
2. They did not get public opinion on their side from the very beginning.
3. They depended on a lot of lousy advice, (Jeb can stop it, the New Age therapy charlatins, some of the anti-abortion crowd, advice to try criminal charges, attack the judge, etc.)

It's a shame.