Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of La Porte
| Decision Date | 24 November 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. D-3831,D-3831 |
| Citation | 865 S.W.2d 941 |
| Parties | Albert W. DAVIS, Rita Davis, Betty Mills, and Edwin N. Mills, Petitioners, v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF the CITY OF LA PORTE, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Jack G. Carnegie, Jack E. Urquhart, Houston, for petitioners.
John D. Armstrong, La Porte, Victor N. Makris, Houston, for respondent.
In this cause, we consider whether a trial court abused its discretion in dismissing a zoning board appeal. The court of appeals held that service of the writ of certiorari, as required by section 211.011 of the Texas Local Government Code, is a jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal a zoning board's decision, and therefore upheld the trial court's dismissal of the Petitioners' case. 853 S.W.2d 650. We disagree, and therefore reverse.
Albert Davis and others (the "Davises") sought judicial review of a decision made by the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of La Porte (the "Board") allowing David and Debbie Couch to construct a large building on a residential lot. After reviewing the Davises' petition, the court ordered the court clerk, upon the posting of a $100 bond, to issue a writ of certiorari to the Board. The bond was not posted, and the writ was not served.
Eleven days before trial, the Board filed a plea in abatement complaining that it had not been served with the writ of certiorari. The Board did not seek dismissal for want of prosecution; nor did it attempt to establish that it had suffered any prejudice. The trial court granted the Board's plea in abatement and allowed the Davises thirty days to file an amended complaint. In a hearing conducted as the result of the Davises' amended complaint, the trial court dismissed the Davises' appeal. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that the Davises "did not timely invoke the jurisdiction of the court." 853 S.W.2d at 653.
Jurisdictional power is defined as "jurisdiction over the subject matter, the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the particular one belongs." Middleton v. Murff, 689 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Tex.1985). Once a party files a petition within ten (10) days after a zoning board decision, the court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim that a board of adjustment acted illegally. See TEX.LOC.GOV'T CODE § 211.011. 1 The writ of certiorari is the method by which the court conducts its review; its purpose is to require a zoning board of adjustment to forward to the court the record of the particular zoning decision being challenged. 2 See Tex.R.App.P. 54 (); Hare v. Hare, 786 S.W.2d 747, 748 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ) (filing a bond is jurisdictional but service of a bond is not). 3
The statute does not contain a specific time limit for issuance of the writ; nor has the Board shown any prejudice caused by the delay. Thus, having complied with the procedures established by the legislature for challenging board of adjustment decisions, the Davises are entitled to their day in court. See Scott v. Board of Adjustment, 405 S.W.2d 55, 56 (Tex.1966). Accordingly, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garcia-Marroquin v. Nueces Cty. Bail Bond
...Subject matter jurisdiction concerns the kinds of controversies a court has the authority to resolve. See Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 865 S.W.2d 941, 942 (Tex.1993). The requirement that a court have subject matter jurisdiction is mandatory - never presumed nor capable of being waive......
-
Allen v. City of Baytown
...city] to forward to the court the record of the particular . . . decision being challenged." Id. (quoting Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of La Porte, 865 S.W.2d 941, 942 (Tex. 1993)). 8. "The requirement of a final decision, in context of an inverse condemnation case, concerns whether th......
-
Appraisal Review Bd. of El Paso v. Fisher
...Subject matter jurisdiction involves the kinds of controversies a court has the authority to resolve. Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of La Porte, 865 S.W.2d 941, 942 (Tex.1993). Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 4......
-
Lamar Corp. v. City of Longview
...the plea, reasoning that the Martinez case was in conflict with the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of La Porte, 865 S.W.2d 941 (Tex.1993). Our review of the overturned decision in Davis reveals that a petition for writ of certiorari was filed. ......