Essenburg v. Dallas County
| Decision Date | 24 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-0055,98-0055 |
| Parties | 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1399 Randy ESSENBURG, John Mallios, Leona Stone, H. Averill Sweitzer and Walter Kowalski, Petitioners, v. DALLAS COUNTY and Dallas County District Clerk, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Timothy E. Kelley, Dallas, for Petitioners.
John Clark Long, IV, John C. Vance, Dallas, for Respondents.
The issue in this case is whether section 81.041 of the Texas Local Government Code is jurisdictional or, alternatively, whether it is a notice requirement. If it is jurisdictional, a defendant can raise lack of compliance for the first time on appeal. See Texas Ass'n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445-56 (Tex.1993). If it is merely a notice requirement, lack of compliance cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The court of appeals held that the provision is jurisdictional and dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We reverse and remand to the court of appeals for consideration of the merits.
Section 81.041(a) provides that "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. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 81.041(a). In this case, Randy Essenburg and several other family law attorneys sued Dallas County for wrongfully collecting certain filing fees. The trial court awarded the unlawfully collected filing fees plus attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs. Dallas County appealed.
On appeal, Dallas County argued for the first time that the plaintiffs' claims are barred for lack of presentment in compliance with section 81.041(a). While this case was pending on appeal, the court of appeals issued Bowles v. Wade, 913 S.W.2d 644 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1995, writ denied), holding that section 81.041 is jurisdictional. The court of appeals then dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, following the precedent it had set in Bowles.
Bowles is the first case to declare section 81.041 or its predecessor statutes--which date back well over one hundred years--to be jurisdictional. Before Bowles, no Texas court had even implied that section 81.041 is a jurisdictional statute. To the contrary, most courts, including this one, have always treated section 81.041 as nothing more than a notice statute. See, e.g., Gregg County v. Farrar, 933 S.W.2d 769, 773 (Tex.App.--Austin 1996, writ denied) (). Indeed, even this Court has referred to section 81.041 as a statute requiring notice. See, e.g., Hines v. Hash, 843 S.W.2d 464, 468 n. 4 (Tex.1992) ().
In Bowles, the Dallas Court of Appeals focused on the statutory language and its similarity to other statutes that require parties to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial recourse, holding that "section 81.041(a) is analogous to the foregoing statutory standing requirements." Bowles, 913 S.W.2d at 648 (). The presentment requirement, however, is not analogous to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement.
It is true that a plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies may deprive courts of subject matter jurisdiction in the dispute. This is so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dallas County Community College v. Bolton
...585-86 (Tex.2002) (finding fee illegal and remanding for reimbursement); • a $71 filing fee in divorce cases in Essenburg v. Dallas County, 988 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Tex.1998) (reversing dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction and remanding for further • a $31 filing fee in In re Long, 984 S.W.2......
-
Nueces County v. Ferguson
...from the county. Bowles v. Wade, 913 S.W.2d 644, 649 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, writ denied), abrogated on other grounds, Essenburg v. Dallas County, 988 S.W.2d 188 (Tex.1998). Thus, Olivarez is entitled to assert any defense the County may assert, Gonzalez, 866 S.W.2d at 349, and claims agains......
-
University of Texas v. Loutzenhiser
...Practice and Remedies Code); Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Aer-Aerotron, Inc., 39 S.W.3d 220, 220-221 (Tex.2001) (same). 47. 988 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Tex.1998) (per curiam). 48. Id. 49. Id. at 188 (construing former Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 81.041(a), now § 89.004); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (Federal T......
-
City of Seabrook v. Port of Houston Auth.
...nature of the section's statutory language, however, suggests that it is also a jurisdictional limitation. See Essenburg v. Dallas County, 988 S.W.2d 188, 188-89 (Tex.1998) (holding that statutory notice requirement, employing term "may not," was not jurisdictional). Several things suggest ......
-
Chapter 6-1 Wrongful Discharge—Breach of Employment Agreement
...Jury Charges 115.25.[38] Ogletree v. Glen Rose ISD, 314 S.W.3d 450, 453-54 (Tex. App.—Waco 2010, pet. denied); Essenburg v. Dallas Cty., 988 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Tex. 1998) (holding that the plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisd......