City of Granite Shoals v. Winder
| Decision Date | 19 March 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-08-00323-CV.,03-08-00323-CV. |
| Citation | 280 S.W.3d 550 |
| Parties | CITY OF GRANITE SHOALS, Pat Crochet, John Gault, David Dittmar, Bessie Jackson, Shirley King, and Merilyn Nations, Appellants v. Ted WINDER, Jamie Parker, Beaver Island Property Owners Association, Denis Snyder, and Ted O. Kostich, Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Cobby A. Caputo, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta, LLP, Austin, TX, for Appellant.
Paul C. Isham, Attorney At Law, Lago Vista, TX, for Appellee.
Before Chief Justice JONES, Justices PURYEAR and HENSON.
Appellants City of Granite Shoals, Pat Crochet, John Gault, David Dittmar, Bessie Jackson, Shirley King, and Merilyn Nations (collectively, the "City") bring this interlocutory appeal of the trial court's order denying their plea to the jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) (West 2008). Appellees (collectively, the "property owners") sued the City for declaratory relief, challenging the City's conversion to a home-rule municipality under article XI, section 5 of the Texas Constitution and its subsequent annexation of the subdivisions in which the individual appellees own property. We will affirm the trial court's order.
The individual appellees are property owners from the subdivisions of Beaver Island and Web Isle, which sit adjacent to the City on Lake LBJ in Burnet County, Texas. In 2004, the City, then a general-law municipality, annexed Beaver Island and Web Isle pursuant to its authority under section 43.033 of the local government code.1 See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 43.033(a)(1)-(7) (West 2008) (). The following year, the City Council adopted ordinances allowing it to draft a home-rule charter and to call an election for the City to incorporate as a home-rule city.2 See id. §§ 9.001-.003 (West 2008). Under the home-rule provision in article XI, section 5 of the Texas Constitution, cities "having more than five thousand (5,000) inhabitants may, by a majority vote of the qualified voters of said city, at an election held for that purpose, adopt or amend their charters." See Tex. Const. art. XI, § 5. The election took place November 8, 2005. A majority of the voters approved the charter, thereby converting the City from a Type A general-law municipality to a home-rule municipality.
On December 22, 2005, more than a year after the City annexed Beaver Island and Web Isle pursuant to its authority as a general-law municipality, a majority of the property owners in those communities submitted petitions for disannexation. See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 43.033(b) (). Therefore, the City was required to disannex Beaver Island and Web Isle, see id. (), which it did on January 17, 2006.3
In April 2006, the City, now acting as a home-rule municipality, again proposed to annex Beaver Island and Web Isle, issuing notice to the property owners of its intent to annex these and several other subdivisions in the area. The local government code provides that a home-rule municipality may "extend the boundaries of the municipality and annex area adjacent to the municipality." Id. § 43.021(2). The statute does not contain a provision allowing residents to petition home-rule municipalities for disannexation; therefore, once the City annexed Beaver Island and Web Isle pursuant to its authority as a home-rule municipality, a majority of the residents could not petition to force the City to disannex their territories as they had previously when the City was a general-law municipality.
After holding two public hearings on the proposed annexations, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 462 (Beaver Island) and 466 (Web Isle), describing and annexing both territories. Thereafter, the property owners filed suit for declaratory judgment, seeking declarations that certain specified actions by the City Council— (1) City Council Ordinance No. 441, which had called for the home-rule election; (2) the home-rule election itself, held November 8, 2005; and (3) the annexations of Beaver Island and Web Isle—were all "null and void" because "the City of Granite Shoals does not have more than 5,000 inhabitants and is not eligible to become home rule under the Constitution and laws of Texas." The property owners sought further declarations that the disannexations of Beaver Island and Web Isle became effective December 22, 2005; that they are entitled to a refund for the 2006 property taxes paid to the City; and that the City "acted willfully, fraudulently, in bad faith, and/or abused their discretion as public officials in determining the population of Granite Shoals during 2005."
The City answered and filed a plea to the jurisdiction and special exceptions, asserting that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit. Specifically, the City argued that (1) the property owners' claim that they are entitled to a tax refund was not yet ripe because they prematurely filed suit in violation of section 43.148 of the local government code; (2) the property owners lacked standing to bring their procedural challenges to the 2006 annexation because they should have been brought either in an election contest or by the State in a quo warranto action; and (3) the property owners lacked standing to challenge the City's home-rule conversion because, as non-residents of the City, they had failed to establish a "special interest or injury" resulting from the conversion.
After a hearing on the City's plea, but before the trial court ruled on it, the parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, reurging their arguments regarding the questions of subject-matter jurisdiction and standing. Much of the evidence attached to their motions addressed the issue of whether the City had acted fraudulently or in bad faith in determining its population, thereby permitting the plaintiffs to challenge the City's home-rule conversion on the basis that it was void ab initio, rather than merely voidable. Following a hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court issued an order denying the City's plea to the jurisdiction and making the following findings of fact:
1. The Plaintiffs were residents of the City of Granite Shoals at the time of the home rule election, and therefore, have standing to contest the home rule conversion of the City of Granite Shoals;
2. The Plaintiffs have standing to contest the home rule conversion of the City of Granite Shoals by virtue of the re-annexation of Beaver Island and Web Isle on May 26, 2006, and the fact that said re-annexations are predicated on the City of Granite Shoals being a valid home rule municipality;
3. The Summary Judgment evidence presented by Plaintiffs indicates that a fact finder could find that the required 5,001 inhabitants determination was made in bad faith or by constructive fraud in which event the home rule conversion would be void, and private citizens would have standing to contest this conversion; and
4. Plaintiffs' challenge to the City of Granite Shoals' conversion to home rule is not the type of action that must be brought as an "election contest" proceeding as contemplated by Section 221.003 of the Texas Election Code.
The City now appeals the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8).
We review the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction de novo. Texas Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex.2004). In deciding a plea to the jurisdiction, we may not weigh the merits of the plaintiff's claims, but must consider only the plaintiff's pleadings, construed in the plaintiff's favor, as well as evidence pertinent to the jurisdictional inquiry. County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex.2002). The supreme court has recognized that in some cases disputed evidence of jurisdictional facts also implicates the merits of the case; such disputed facts may require resolution by the finder of fact. See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226. Only if the pleadings and jurisdictional evidence affirmatively and conclusively negate the existence of jurisdiction should a plea to the jurisdiction be granted. Id. at 227.
When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the pleadings, we first determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court's jurisdiction to hear the cause. Id. at 226 (citing Texas Ass'n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex.1993)). We construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiff and look to the pleader's intent. Id. If the pleadings do not contain sufficient facts to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court's jurisdiction, but do not affirmatively demonstrate incurable defects in jurisdiction, the issue is one of pleading sufficiency and the plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to amend. Id. at 226-27 (citing Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 555). If the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, then a plea to the jurisdiction may be granted without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend. Id. at 227.
If a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, the trial court considers relevant evidence submitted by the parties when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised. Id. If the evidence creates a fact question regarding the jurisdictional issue, the trial court cannot grant the plea to the jurisdiction, and the fact issue will be resolved by the fact finder. Id. at 227-28. If, however, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker Cnty. ESD No. 3 v. City of Huntsville
...a declaration that the State or its subdivisions do not have the authority to hold an election is, however, not an election contest. See id. at 557-58. The City's original petition asks among other requests for relief for a declaration that "the November 2, 2021 election held by [the ESD] w......
- Walker Cnty. ESD No. 3 v. City of Huntsville
- In re Bishop