Hill v. City of Fair Oaks Ranch
| Decision Date | 16 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-19-00037-CV,07-19-00037-CV |
| Parties | EDWARD I. HILL, ROBERT E. HECKENDORN, CRAIG M. LUITJEN, ROGER FUENTES, WESLEY A. PIEPER, ESTHER W. HICKS, WILLIAM A. MCDOWELL, YOLANDA D. AYALA, PG PFEIFFER RANCHES, LLC, AND MAUREEN PFEIFFER STEVENSON FAMILY TRUST, APPELLANTS v. THE CITY OF FAIR OAKS RANCH, TEXAS, APPELLEE |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 45th District Court Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2018CI00202; Honorable Peter Sakai, Presiding by Assignment
Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Appellants, Edward I. Hill, Robert E. Heckendorn, Craig M. Luitjen, Roger Fuentes, Wesley A. Pieper, Esther W. Hicks, William A. McDowell, Yolanda D. Ayala, PG Pfeiffer Ranches, LLC, and the Maureen Pfeiffer Stevenson Family Trust (hereafter the "landowners"), filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that five separate city ordinances annexing certain properties, which encompassed property they owned and on which they resided, was void ab initio as being beyond the statutory annexation authority of Appellee, the City of Fair Oaks Ranch. The City answered the suit with a general denial and the affirmative defense of governmental immunity due to its status as a political subdivision of the State.1 After limited discovery, the City filed its Second Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction alleging the landowners lacked standing to challenge the annexations. The City also alleged that the landowners failed to include their residential addresses in their pleadings, a necessary prerequisite to establish standing, according to the City. Alternatively, the City contested the landowners' claim that it was without authority to involuntarily annex the properties in question.
After a hearing on the City's plea to the jurisdiction, at which only arguments were presented, the trial court took the matter under advisement. A few months later, the trial court signed an order granting the City's Second Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction. The landowners filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. Despite no evidence having been presented, the trial court entered findings of fact supporting the City's claim that it properly annexed the properties in question. It also entered a conclusion of law that the landowners "lack[ed] standing to contest the City's annexation of Area 10 in Ordinance 2017-14 . . . with regard to the width of the annexed area." The trial court further concluded that "[o]nly a quo warranto proceeding would be a valid challenge to the City's annexation . . . ."2
The landowners now appeal the trial court's order and by a single issue, request that this court determine whether certain statutes in chapter 43 of the Texas Local Government Code apply, which they contend would render annexation of the properties void ab initio or otherwise invalid or unenforceable. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings.3
BACKGROUND
The landowners own and reside in certain areas of the City of Fair Oaks Ranch, in Bexar County, Texas. In 2015 and 2016, the City was a "general-law municipality"4 and it did not annex any properties during those years, whether by consent or involuntarily annexation. On May 6, 2017, the City changed its status to a "home-rule municipality."5 Later that year, on November 29, 2017, the City adopted eleven annexation ordinances, to wit: 2017-14, 2017-15, 2017-16, 2017-17, 2017-18, 2017-19, 2017-20, 2017-21, 2017-22, 2017-23, and 2017-24. The landowners reside in five of the annexed areas and thus, by their live pleading challenged only five of those ordinances: (1) 2017-14 (Area 10), (2) 2017-15 (Area 3), (3) 2017-19 (Area 9), (4) 2017-20 (Area 11), and (5) 2017-24 (Area 5) in the underlying suit.
The City's geographic area prior to annexation of the landowners' properties consisted of 6,565.41 acres. The five annexations at issue added 1,328 acres to the geographic area of the City—an increase of approximately twenty percent. By ordinance 2017-14, one of the annexation ordinances being challenged, the City annexed Area 10, a triangular-shaped strip of property consisting of 103.93 acres, which was approximately 180 feet wide at its southern tip.
By their declaratory judgment action, the landowners alleged the City (1) illegally annexed Area 10 by violating statutory width requirements for annexing strips of land and (2) illegally annexed the other four areas by exceeding the maximum percentage allowed to be annexed each year, which is ten percent plus any amount carried over from previous years.6
By its live plea to the jurisdiction, the City raised three issues: (1) whether the landowners have standing to file suit; (2) its authority to annex the properties under section 43.055 (); and (3) its authority to annex Area 10 under section 43.054 (). The City's plea is supported by the affidavits of the city manager and the city secretary as well as copies of the city council meeting minutes of November 29, 2017, and copies of the ordinances passed at that meeting.
By his affidavit, the city manager averred that the landowners reside within or own the properties being annexed and confirmed that the annexed properties increased the City's incorporated area by twenty percent for the three-year period from 2015 to 2017. By her affidavit, the city secretary, custodian of the City's records, authenticated the city council meeting minutes, as well as the ordinances that were approved at that meeting. A map of Area 10 was also included with the City's plea.
The landowners did not file a response to the City's Second Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction; however, they did file a response to the City's First Amended Plea to theJurisdiction. By that response, they held firm to the allegations in their live pleading that the City's annexations exceeded the statutory maximum percentage of land that could be annexed in 2017, and violated the statutory minimum width requirement in annexing Area 10 because none of the statutory exceptions applied.
STANDARD OF REVIEW—PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
In general, the State of Texas, as well as its political subdivisions, enjoy sovereign immunity from suit. Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex. 2004). As such, they can only be sued if the Legislature waives immunity in "clear and unambiguous language." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 311.034 (West 2013). The party bringing suit against a governmental entity bears the burden of alleging facts affirmatively demonstrating the trial court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice v. Miller, 51 S.W.3d 583, 587 (Tex. 2001). In reviewing a party's petition to determine if jurisdiction exists, we construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the pleading party, Univ. of Tex. at Austin v. Hayes, 327 S.W.3d 113, 116 (Tex. 2010), and in doing so, we must look to the pleader's intent. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226.
In this context, a plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea filed by the governmental entity that challenges the trial court's authority to decide the subject matter of a specific cause of action. Id. A governmental entity contending it has immunity is claiming the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim because it is protected from suit which has not been legislatively waived. Tex. D.O.T. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex. 1999).
When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, the trial court cannot grant the plea, and the issue must be resolved by the trier of fact.Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227-28. On the other hand, if the evidence is undisputed or fails to raise a question of fact, the trial court must rule on the plea as a matter or law. Id. at 228. Furthermore, if the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, a plea to the jurisdiction may be granted without allowing a plaintiff the opportunity to amend. Id. at 227. However, if the pleadings do not contain sufficient facts to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court's jurisdiction, but do not affirmatively demonstrate incurable defects, then the issue is one of pleading sufficiency and the plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to amend. Id. at 226-27; State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 643 (Tex. 2007). In some cases, a plea to the jurisdiction may require the court to consider evidence pertaining to jurisdictional facts. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227.
We review a trial court's ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction under a de novo standard of review. Tex. D.O.T. & Edinburg v. A.P.I. Pipe & Supply, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 162, 166 (Tex. 2012); Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226. In our review, we do not delve into the merits of a case or decide whether the plaintiff should win or lose on the basis of those claims. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000); City of Argyle v. Pierce, 258 S.W.3d 674, 682 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. dism'd). Instead, we merely decide whether the trial court has the judicial authority to reach the merits of those claims. City of Argyle, 258 S.W.3d at 682 (citing Bland Indep. Sch. Dist., 34 S.W.3d at 554).
APPLICABLE LAW
The Texas Constitution confers on a municipality the power to annex territory within its jurisdiction. TEX. CONST. art. XI, § 5. The Legislature provided the statutoryscheme for municipal annexation in chapter 43 of the Texas Local Government Code. TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 43.001-.908 (West 2008 & Supp. 2019).
ANALYSIS
In 2017, prior to suit being filed by the landowners, the Legislature waived a political subdivision's immunity from suit for actions brought under chapter 43 of the Texas Local Government Code. TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 43.908(b) (West Supp. 2019). In doing so, the Legislature prescribed mandamus or declaratory or injunctive relief as the appropriate methods for enforcing the provisions of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial