In re Breviloba, LLC

• Decision Date: 24 June 2022
• Docket Number: 21-0541
• Citation: 650 S.W.3d 508
• Parties: IN RE BREVILOBA, LLC, Relator
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

650 S.W.3d 508

IN RE BREVILOBA, LLC, Relator

No. 21-0541

Supreme Court of Texas.

OPINION DELIVERED: June 24, 2022
Rehearing Denied September 2, 2022

Ellen Austin Vecchio, Frederick D. Junkin, Houston, for Amicus Curiae Texas Oil & Gas Association.

Andrew L. Edelman, Joseph "Joe" R. Greenhill III, Paul Jacob Paschal, Jody Scott Sanders, Fort Worth, Thomas J. Forestier, Harriet O'Neill, Austin, David F. Johnson, Fort Worth, David Wayne Moorman, David E. Keltner, Fort Worth, for Relator.

Harper Estes, Midland, Derek D. Cook, for Other interested party Altus Midstream Company.

James E. Mann, Austin, for Amicus Curiae Texas Pipeline Association.

Tommy J. Swann, Lubbock, for Other interested party Capital Farm Credit, FLCA.

Bill Youngkin, D. Todd Smith, Amanda G. Taylor, Marshall Bowen, Scott K. Field, Austin, for Real Party in Interest.

George Scott Christian, for Amicus Curiae Texas Civil Justice League.

PER CURIAM

"District courts and county courts at law have concurrent jurisdiction in eminent domain cases." TEX. PROP. CODE § 21.001.¹ In a county with a county court at law, an eminent domain case must ordinarily be filed in that court. Id. § 21.013(b). But if an eminent domain case "involves an issue of title or any other matter that cannot be fully adjudicated " in the county court at law, that court must transfer the case to the district court. Id. § 21.002 (emphasis added). "In addition to" county courts at law's eminent domain jurisdiction, some county courts at law also have concurrent jurisdiction with district courts in civil cases, limited by a dollar cap on the amount in controversy. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 25.0003(c)(1) (emphasis added). The question before us is this: in an eminent domain case brought in a county court at law, do counterclaims that challenge the authority to condemn and seek damages in excess of the amount-in-controversy cap on the court's additional jurisdiction require a transfer to the district court? Here, the county court at law answered no. A divided court of appeals disagreed. 625 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. App.—Waco 2021). We agree with the county court at law.

Breviloba, LLC sued H & S Hoke Ranch, LLC in the Walker County Court at Law to condemn a 50-foot-wide pipeline easement across Hoke Ranch's property.² Hoke Ranch counterclaimed, asserting that Breviloba is not a common carrier and

650 S.W.3d 510

therefore lacks condemnation authority. Hoke Ranch alleged that Breviloba's unauthorized taking constituted bad-faith trespass and fraud. After receiving some unfavorable rulings from the court, Hoke Ranch amended its counterclaims to specify that it sought ownership of the portion of pipeline crossing over its land. It included an "alternative pleading" alleging over $13 million in damages if Breviloba retained ownership of the pipeline. Hoke Ranch moved to transfer the counterclaims to the district court, arguing that they exceeded the court's jurisdictional limit. The county court at law denied the motion to transfer.

Hoke Ranch petitioned for mandamus relief, which the court of appeals granted. 625 S.W.3d at 224. Section 25.0003(c)(1) of the Government Code provides:

In addition to other jurisdiction provided by law, a statutory county court exercising civil jurisdiction concurrent with the constitutional jurisdiction of the county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the

...