Bowles v. Wade

• Decision Date: 26 October 1995
• Docket Number: No. 05-94-01833-CV,05-94-01833-CV
• Citation: 913 S.W.2d 644
• Parties: Jim BOWLES, Sheriff of Dallas County, and Dallas County, Appellants, v. Rick WADE d/b/a A Way Out Bail Bonds, Tammy Lynn Waggoner d/b/a Texas Bonding, Herman Herndon d/b/a Metroplex Bail Bond Service, and Richard Scott d/b/a Credit Bail Bonds, Appellees.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 644

913 S.W.2d 644

Jim BOWLES, Sheriff of Dallas County, and Dallas County, Appellants, v. Rick WADE d/b/a A Way Out Bail Bonds, Tammy Lynn Waggoner d/b/a Texas Bonding, Herman Herndon d/b/a

Metroplex Bail Bond Service, and Richard

Scott d/b/a Credit Bail Bonds,

Appellees.

No. 05-94-01833-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas,

Dallas.

Oct. 26, 1995.

Rehearing Overruled Dec. 8, 1995.

Thomas F. Keever, Assistant District Attorney, Dallas, for Appellants.

G. Leroy Street, Ronald D. Gray, Geary Porter & Donovan, P.C., Dallas, for Appellees.

Before LAGARDE, OVARD and WRIGHT, JJ.

OPINION

WRIGHT, Justice.

Sheriff Jim Bowles and Dallas County appeal the trial court's judgment in favor of Wade, Waggoner, Herndon, and Scott (collectively "Wade"). In ten points of error, appellants assert the trial court erred in: (1) finding that Wade had sustained damage; (2) holding Dallas County and Sheriff Bowles liable for refund of bail bond approval fees; (3) holding Sheriff Bowles liable for four times the bail bond approval fees charged under article 3909; ¹ (4) awarding prejudgment and postjudgment interest on article 3909 damages; (5) holding that bail bond approval fees violated the Texas Constitution; (6) applying a four year statute of limitations; (7) applying Camacho v. Samaniego, 831 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.1992), retroactively; (8) finding that Wade's claims were not barred by laches; and (9) awarding Wade attorney's fees. In a cross-point of error, Wade asserts the trial court erred in not holding Dallas County liable for Sheriff Bowles's article 3909 liability.

Because we conclude the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in this cause, we do not reach the merits of appellants' or Wade's arguments on appeal. We vacate the trial court's judgment and dismiss the cause.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Beginning in 1981, Dallas County, through commissioners court orders, set fees to be charged for the taking and approving of bail bonds by the Dallas County Sheriff. ² We will refer to these fees as "bail bond approval fees." All persons posting a bail bond, whether a licensed bail bondsperson, attorney, or private individual, were required to pay the bail bond approval fee.

From February 15, 1989 to June 17, 1992, Dallas County also charged a fee for filing an affidavit to go off bond. We will refer to these fees as "ATGOB fees." The commissioners court did not authorize these fees.

All bail bond approval fees and ATGOB fees were deposited into the general fund of Dallas County. The parties stipulated that Sheriff Bowles did not use any of the fees for his personal gain or economic benefit.

The commissioners court had authorized the collection of the bail bond approval fees under color of Texas Revised Civil Statute article 3926a. ³ On May 6, 1992, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that counties did not have the authority to collect bail bond approval fees under authority of article 3926a. See Camacho v. Samaniego, 831 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.1992). The supreme court held that article 3926a applied only to civil matters and that the bond approval fees were illegal and unauthorized. Camacho, 831 S.W.2d at 812-15.

Wade ⁴ filed a declaratory judgment action against Dallas County and Sheriff Bowles on June 11, 1992. Wade sought recovery of the bail bond approval fees, ATGOB fees, and statutory penalties. Sheriff Bowles and Dallas County answered, asserting among other defenses, that: Wade lacked standing; ⁵ sovereign immunity barred Wade's claims against Dallas County; various claims of derivative immunity and governmental immunity barred Wade's claims against Sheriff Bowles; limitations and laches barred Wade's claims; and Camacho should be given prospective application only.

The parties submitted their claims and defenses to the trial judge for trial based on stipulated facts. The trial judge found that collection of the fees constituted an unlawful and involuntary taking in violation of the Texas Constitution. Wade was awarded recovery in an amount equal to the bond approval and ATGOB fees charged from February 15, 1989 through June 17, 1992. The trial court also awarded Wade prejudgment and postjudgment interest and attorney's fees. The foregoing awards were against Sheriff Bowles and Dallas County. In addition to the foregoing, the trial court awarded Wade recovery against Sheriff Bowles pursuant to Texas Revised Civil Statute article 3909.

After submission on appeal, we addressed the question of the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Specifically, we questioned whether Wade had satisfied local government code section 81.041(a) ⁶ and the effect of failing to satisfy this section on Wade's standing and the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. Because standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction, it is appropriate for us to raise the issue sua sponte and address it for the first time on appeal. See Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445-46 (Tex.1993).

We advised the parties of our concerns regarding the trial court's and this Court's jurisdiction through a letter and a subsequent order. The parties were given an opportunity to file briefs and additional materials bearing upon Wade's standing. ⁷ See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.220(c) (Vernon 1988); Dallas County Appraisal Dist. v. Funds Recovery, Inc., 887 S.W.2d 465, 470 n. 10 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1994, writ denied).

We have reviewed the parties' responses to our inquiries and the relevant statutory and case law. We conclude Wade did not present his claims to the commissioners court prior to filing suit and had no standing to invoke the trial court's jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction only to vacate the trial court's judgment and dismiss the cause.

THE TRIAL COURT'S SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

A. Applicable Law

1. Standing to Bring Suit Against a County

Local government code section 81.041(a) provides:

A person may not sue on a claim against a county unless the person has presented the claim to the commissioners court and the commissioners court has neglected or refused to pay all or part of the claim.

TEX. LOCAL GOV'T CODE ANN. § 81.041(a) (Vernon 1988). Texas courts have long held that the presentment requirement contained in the earlier enactments of section 81.041(a) is a prerequisite that must be satisfied before a litigant has the right to institute and maintain suit against a county. See Anderson v. Ashe, 99 Tex. 447, 90 S.W. 872, 874 (1906); Mims v. Hunt County, 620 S.W.2d 664, 666 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1981, no writ); Wade v. Jackson County, 547 S.W.2d 371, 373-74 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Lovell v. Bynum, 315 S.W.2d 20, 22 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1958, writ ref'd n.r.e.); McLennan County v. Miller, 257 S.W. 680, 681 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1923, no writ); Bogue v. Van Zandt County, 138 S.W. 1065, 1066 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1911, no writ); Yantis v. Montague County, 50 Tex.Civ.App. 403, 110 S.W. 161, 162 (Fort Worth 1908, no writ); Presido County v. Jeff Davis County, 13 Tex.Civ.App. 115, 35 S.W. 177, 178 (San Antonio 1896, writ ref'd). Unless the presentment requirement is satisfied, "suit ... cannot be maintained" against a county. Norwood v. Gonzales County, 79 Tex. 218, 14 S.W. 1057, 1058 (1891). The same proposition has been stated in terms of satisfaction of the presentment requirement being a "condition precedent to the filing of a suit." Farmers State Bank v. Bowie County, 127 Tex. 641, 95 S.W.2d 1304, 1306 (1936).

The language the legislature used in article 81.041, "[a] person may not sue," speaks directly to a litigant's right to invoke a trial court's jurisdiction. Indeed, the language the legislature used in article 81.041(a) goes more directly to the litigant's right to sue than did the language used in the earlier enactments. ⁸ In view of the express language of section 81.041(a) and the relevant case law, we conclude that satisfaction of article 81.041(a) is necessary before a litigant has standing to invoke a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. ⁹ Stated otherwise, a trial court has no subject matter jurisdiction over a claim against a county unless the claim has first been presented to the commissioners court and the commissioners court has denied or neglected the claim.

Holding that section 81.041(a) is a legislatively mandated standing requirement is well precedented. There are constitutional standards setting forth a party's standing. ¹⁰ Additionally, in some other contexts, the legislature has established standards governing a litigant's right to invoke a court's subject matter jurisdiction. For example, to invoke a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim under the Commission on Human Rights Act, ¹¹ the complaining party must first present the claim to the Texas Commission on Human Rights. Schroeder v. Texas Iron Works, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 483, 488 (Tex.1991). If the claim is not presented to the commission, the litigant does not have the right to have the claim adjudicated in a judicial court. See Schroeder, 813 S.W.2d at 488. An employer wanting to obtain reimbursement of advance payments of worker's compensation benefits must first present its claim to the Texas Worker's Compensation Commission. Ankrom v. Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., 900 S.W.2d 75, 77 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1995, writ denied) ("A party's failure to obtain an administrative ruling on an issue arising under the worker's compensation statute prevents the party from later invoking the jurisdiction of the district court to resolve the issue."). Generally, a litigant that fails to exhaust its available administrative remedies under the tax code cannot invoke a trial court's jurisdiction. Dallas County Appraisal Dist., 887 S.W.2d at 470. In order to appeal a decision of Texas State Board of Dental Examiners, a litigant must first strictly comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. ¹² Simmons v. Texas State Bd. of Dental...