Lubbock County v. Trammel's Bail Bonds

Decision Date20 June 2002
Docket NumberNo. 01-0406.,01-0406.
Citation80 S.W.3d 580
PartiesLUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS, Petitioner, v. TRAMMEL'S LUBBOCK BAIL BONDS, Gomez Bail Bonds, and Allstate Bail Bonds, Respondents.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Charlotte Bingham, Lubbock, for Petitioner.

Broadus A. Spivey, Francis Y. Pan, Spivey & Ainsworth, Austin, for Respondent.

Justice RODRIGUEZ delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issues in this case are: (1) whether Lubbock County's bail-bond service charge is unlawful because it is not authorized by any statute; (2) whether the presentment statute, Texas Local Government Code section 89.004(a), is jurisdictional; and (3) whether the presentment statute delays accrual of a claim for the reimbursement of funds against a county until the claim has been presented to and is rejected by the county commissioners court. We conclude that fact questions remain on the extent to which the bail-bond service charge was used for providing copies to the bail-bond companies and was thus authorized by statute. We also reaffirm that the presentment statute is not jurisdictional. Further, we overrule City of Taylor v. Hodges, 143 Tex. 441, 186 S.W.2d 61 (1945), and Jones County v. Moore, 4 S.W.2d 289 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1928, writ ref d), and hold that the presentment statute does not delay the accrual of a cause of action against a county for reimbursement of unauthorized charges. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals' judgment in part, reverse in part, and render judgment as explained below.

I.

In 1985, Lubbock County began charging bail-bond providers a ten-dollar bond service charge per criminal defendant. In exchange, the County gave the bail-bond providers copies of bonds and print-outs of records to help them track their bonds. Trammel's Lubbock Bail Bonds, Gomez Bail Bonds, and Allstate Bail Bonds paid the service charges on each bond until June 1992, when the County discontinued the service charge in the wake of this Court's decision in Camacho v. Samoa lego, 831 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.1992). In Cantorho, we held that El Paso County's system of preconviction bail-bond fees lacked statutory authority. Id. at 815.

A.

On June 17, 1993, Trammel's served a presentment letter on the County under section 89.004(a) of the Local Government Code. That section provides: "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."1 Trammel's letter demanded a refund of all previously paid fees, threatening to sue if the County failed to refund the money within thirty days. The County did not respond, and Trammel's filed suit on August 11, 1993. Gomez and Allstate intervened as plaintiffs on March 11, 1994, but did not serve the County with a presentment letter until August 19, 1997.

On December 28, 1998, the County moved for partial summary judgment against Trammel's, alleging that limitations, or alternatively laches, barred recovery on any claim accruing more than two years before Trammel's presented its claim to the County. The County also moved for summary judgment on Gomez's and Allstate's claims, alleging that their failure to present their claims to the County before intervening in the suit prevented the court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over those claims. In addition, the County argued that limitations barred any possible recovery by Gomez and Allstate because presentment was made five years after the bond service charge was discontinued. On June 17, 1999, Trammel's, Gomez, and Allstate filed a joint motion for summary judgment against the County, arguing that they were entitled, as a matter of law, to a refund of all bond service charges they had paid because the service charge was not authorized by statute and was therefore unlawful under this Court's holding in Camacho.

The trial court concluded that limitations barred Trammel's claims for service charges paid before June 17, 1991, two years before Trammel's presented its claim to the county commissioners court. The trial court therefore granted the County's motion against Trammel's and rendered a partial summary judgment for the County on Trammel's claims accruing before June 17, 1991. However, the trial court granted in part Trammel's motion for summary judgment, awarding Trammel's the bond service charges it had paid from June 17, 1991, to June 17, 1993. The trial court also granted the County's motion for summary judgment against Gomez and Allstate, ruling that limitations barred all their claims, and rendered judgment that they take nothing. The trial court denied Gomez's and Allstate's motion. Only the bail-bond companies appealed to the court of appeals.

B.

With regard to the bail-bond companies' claim that the bond service charge was not authorized by any statute and was therefore unlawful under this Court's holding in Camacho, the court of appeals concluded that fact issues precluded summary judgment. 60 S.W.3d 145, 152. The court of appeals held that material questions of fact remained regarding the extent to which the service charge was for the copies and print-outs provided to the bail-bond companies and was thus authorized by Texas Government Code section 552.261. Id.

Following our opinion in Essenburg v. Dallas County, 988 S.W.2d 188 (Tex.1998), the court of appeals further held that section 89.004(a) is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit. Id. at 151. Finally, the court of appeals held that limitations does not begin to run in suits against counties until presentment to and rejection by the commissioners court. Id. at 149. Therefore, the court of appeals concluded, limitations did not begin to run on Trammel's claim until July 17, 1993 (the date specified in Trammel's demand letter), when the claim was impliedly rejected by the Connty. Id. Similarly, because Gomez and Allstate had not yet presented their claims to the County when they joined the suit, their claims had not yet accrued and limitations did not bar them. Id. at 150. Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case to the trial court to determine the extent, if any, to which the bond service charge was authorized by section 552.261 of the Government Code.

C.

The bail-bond companies filed a petition for review, asking us to decide whether they were entitled to full reimbursement, as a matter of law, of all monies paid because the bond service charge was not authorized by statute. The County also filed a petition for review, asking us to decide: (1) whether Gomez's and Allstate's failure to present their claims before intervening was a jurisdictional bar to suit; and (2) whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that limitations did not begin to run until Trammel's claim was presented to and rejected by the County. When both sides have moved for summary judgment and one motion is granted and one denied, we should determine all questions presented and render the judgment the trial court should have rendered. See City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 356 (Tex.2000).

II.

We first consider whether the bond service charge in question is unlawful because it is not authorized by statute. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 103.002 bars a county from imposing a charge in a criminal matter for any service not "expressly provided by law." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 103.002. The bailbond companies assert that Camacho v. Samaniego, 831 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.1992), establishes that the bond service charge the County collected was unauthorized as a matter of law. In Camacho, we examined the validity of a bail-bond approval fee that was allegedly authorized under Texas Local Government Code section 118.131, which provides that the "commissioners court of a county may set reasonable fees to be charged for services by the offices of the sheriff and constables."2 We held that this statute applies only to civil matters, and thus could not have authorized the bail-bond approval fee at issue. No other statute was alleged to explicitly authorize the fee. Id. at 812. Accordingly, we held that the fee was invalid.

Here, the summary judgment evidence included deposition testimony from the Lubbock County Treasurer stating that the County provided copies of bonds and print-outs of records to the bail-bond companies when the bond service charge was being collected. The Treasurer went on to state that after the service charge was discontinued, it was necessary to charge the companies for these same copies and print-outs. By statute, a governmental body may charge for providing copies of public information. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 552.261 (formerly TEX.REV.CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 6252-17a § 9(a)). The County argues that this statute authorizes the bond service charge at issue. The record is unclear on the extent to which the bond service charge was used for providing copies to the bail-bond companies. Therefore, we agree with the court of appeals that the statute could authorize the charges, and we conclude that a material fact question exists concerning the extent to which the bond service charge collected was used to pay for copies and print-outs. Therefore, we remand to the trial court to consider whether the service charge the County collected was authorized by statute in whole or in part.

Although we conclude that a fact question exists regarding the extent to which the bond service charge was used for providing copies to the bail-bond companies, we must consider the fact that the County did not appeal the trial court's judgment. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1 provides that a "party who seeks to alter the trial court's judgment ... must file a notice of appeal." TEX.R.APP. P. 25.1(c). The County did not file a notice of appeal. Only the bail-bond companies filed a notice of appeal. Because the trial court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
219 cases
  • Dallas County Community College v. Bolton
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 2 Diciembre 2005
    ...and cites several cases in which this Court ordered that government fees be reimbursed. See, e.g., Lubbock County, Tex. v. Trammel's Lubbock Bail Bonds, 80 S.W.3d 580, 585-86 (Tex.2002); Camacho v. Samaniego, 831 S.W.2d 804, 815 (Tex. 1992). The dissent itself refutes the force of these opi......
  • Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Limmer, No. 14-02-00688-CV (TX 10/5/2004)
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 5 Octubre 2004
    ...precedent from the Texas Supreme Court. Consideration of any changes to common-law rules must be left to that higher authority. Lubbock County, Tex. v. Trammel's Lubbock Bail Bonds, 80 S.W.3d 580, 585 (Tex. 2002); Deutsch v. Hoover, Bax & Slovacek, L.L.P, 97 S.W.3d 179, 195 (Tex. App.-Houst......
  • In re Doe, 14-16-00555-CV
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 8 Septiembre 2016
    ...Code 2.5(c).58 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 33.003 ; In re Doe , 19 S.W.3d at 251, 256–57.59 See Lubbock County, Texas v. Trammel's Lubbock Bail Bonds, 80 S.W.3d 580, 585 (Tex.2002).60 See id.61 See In re Doe , 19 S.W.3d at 256–57.62 See id.63 The evidence before the trial court did not includ......
  • Robinson v. Home Owners Mgmt. Enters., Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 22 Noviembre 2019
    ...maker (court or arbitrator) should decide" class arbitration issues was "not accurate").44 Lubbock Cty. v. Trammel's Lubbock Bail Bonds , 80 S.W.3d 580, 585 (Tex. 2002).45 Id. ("It is not the function of a court of appeals to abrogate or modify established precedent. That function lies sole......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 4 Appealability and Notice of Appeal
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Practitioner's Guide to Civil Appeals in Texas
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Chandler, 842 S.W.2d 829, 834–35 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1992, writ denied).[64] Lubbock Cty., Tex. v. Trammel's Lubbock Bail Bonds, 80 S.W.3d 580, 583–84 (Tex. 2002).[65] Lubbock Cty., Tex. v. Trammel's Lubbock Bail Bonds, 80 S.W.3d 580, 583–84 (Tex. 2002).[66] Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(c).[67] W......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT