Nueces Cnty. & Nueces Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. San Patricio Cnty.

• Docket Number: 13-21-00466-CV
• Decision Date: 28 December 2023
• Parties: NUECES COUNTY AND NUECES COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellants, v. SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

1

NUECES COUNTY AND NUECES COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellants,
v.
SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, Appellee.

No. 13-21-00466-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg

December 28, 2023

On appeal from the 135th District Court of Refugio County, Texas.

Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Peña

OPINION

L. ARON PEÑA, JR. JUSTICE

Appellants Nueces County and the Nueces County Appraisal District (NCAD) appeal a summary judgment entered in favor of appellee San Patricio County regarding

2

a boundary dispute. See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 72.009. The present suit involves the interpretation of an earlier 2003 Judgment setting the boundary line between the two counties. In three issues, Nueces County and NCAD^[1] argue that the trial court erred in: (1) concluding that piers, wharfs, docks, and related facilities connected to the shoreline of San Patricio County are in San Patricio County; (2) concluding that certain categories of land within the bays are within San Patricio County; and (3) binding NCAD to the 2003 Judgment when it was not a party to that litigation. We affirm.

I. Background

A. Boundary Dispute

"Counties are creatures of the Legislature." In re Occidental Chem. Corp. (Occidental), 561 S.W.3d 146, 151 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (citing Tex. Const. art. IX, § 1 ("The Legislature shall have power to create counties for the convenience of the people[.]"), Tex. Const. of 1845, art. VII, § 34 ("The legislature shall, at the first session thereof, and may at any subsequent session, establish new counties for the convenience of the inhabitants of such new county or counties[.]")). "The 1846 boundary between San Patricio County and Nueces County was described as 'following the meanders' of Corpus Christi Bay." Id. (quoting Act approved April 18, 1846, 1st Leg., R.S., § 1, 1846 Tex. Gen. Laws 86, reprinted in 2 H.P.N. Gammel, The Laws of Texas 1822-1897, at 1392, 1392 (Austin, Gammel Book Co. 1898)). "In 1897, the Legislature authorized counties to sue each other for the purpose of establishing the boundary line between them." Id. (cleaned up). That statute currently provides that suit must be brought in the district court of the closest, adjoining county "whose boundaries are not affected by the suit." Tex. Loc. Gov't

3

Code Ann. § 72.009(a). "The district court has jurisdiction to determine where the boundary line is located and may order the line to be re-marked and resurveyed." Id. § 72.009(b). "The line established by the district court shall be treated as the true boundary between the counties unless the court determines that the line in question was established under prior law." Id.

B. The 1972 Suit

The Texas Supreme Court has summarized the initial boundary dispute between the counties as follows:

In 1972, San Patricio County sued Nueces County in the district court of neighboring Refugio County to determine the boundary between the two counties running along the Nueces River, and the Nueces, Corpus Christi, and Redfish Bays, and to recover taxes which it claimed that Nueces County wrongfully assessed on the San Patricio County side of the boundary. The counties disputed whether statutes then delineating their boundaries set the dividing line in the center of those waterways, as San Patricio County argued, or at the shoreline, as Nueces County argued. The case remained pending for 17 years. Finally, in 1989, the trial court granted summary judgment for Nueces County[, setting the boundary at the shoreline]. The court of appeals reversed because the judgment failed to dispose of San Patricio County's claim that the shoreline had moved or been modified by natural processes, such as erosion, or by human intervention, such as dredging. The court remanded the case for trial of the issue of which county includes [modifications to the shoreline.]

Occidental, 561 S.W.3d at 151-52 (cleaned up).

C. 2003 Judgment Following Remand

Fourteen years later, in 2003, the trial court rendered a final judgment. The court "decreed that the common boundary line between San Patricio and Nueces Counties" runs, in relevant part, "along the northerly shorelines of the Nueces Bay and Corpus Christi Bay" and that "San Patricio County shall lie northerly of that line" and "Nueces County shall lie southerly of that line." The judgment defined "shoreline" as "the point at

4

which the waters of the bays meet the mainland at mean lower low tide." The judgment stated that San Patricio County "shall include the parts of the Donnell and Ingleside Points detached from the mainland by the La Quinta ship channel and the waters of La Quinta ship channel intervening between the detached parts of Donnell and Ingleside Points and the mainland," and "the part of Dagger Island detached from the mainland by the Intercoastal ship channel and the waters of the Intercoastal ship channel intervening between the detached part of Dagger Island and the mainland." On the remanded issue, the judgment declared: "Past and future natural and artificial modifications to the shoreline of San Patricio County shall form a part of San Patricio County." Both counties rely on the following demonstrative evidence in their appellate briefs to depict the detached properties referenced in the judgment:

(Image Omitted)

After the 2003 Judgment became final, Nueces County filed a petition for bill of review alleging that it had not received notice of the judgment.

5

San Patricio County v. Nueces County, 214 S.W.3d 536, 543 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2006), judgm't vacated on other grounds, 246 S.W.3d 651 (Tex. 2008). The trial court set aside the 2003 Judgment, consolidated the boundary suit and the bill of review proceedings, and adopted the 2003 Judgment as its judgment on the merits. Id. at 544. On appeal to this Court, we reversed the trial court's judgment granting the bill of review, and we affirmed the 2003 Judgment. Id. at 549. Nueces County did not seek further review of the 2003 Judgment's establishment of the boundary line between the two counties. See Nueces County v. San Patricio County, 246 S.W.3d 651 (Tex. 2008) (reviewing only the award of damages against Nueces County for taxes improperly levied on San Patricio County properties and holding that Nueces County was immune from such claims).

D. 2009 Suit

In 2009, San Patricio County filed a new § 72.009 suit in Refugio County district court to enjoin Nueces County from taxing certain properties that extend into the water of the Nueces County bays. San Patricio County claimed the properties were on its side of the boundary pursuant to the 2003 Judgment. San Patricio also sought a declaration that certain lands in the bays were a part of San Patricio County.

Nueces County filed a cross-petition seeking a declaration that the 2003 Judgment awarded the entirety of the bays to Nueces County, including piers, docks, and wharfs. On Nueces County's motion, venue was transferred to Nueces County, where the case sat inactive for years. In 2014, the Nueces County district court granted summary judgment for Nueces County, dismissing all of San Patricio County's claims. However, this Court reversed, concluding that under § 72.009, the case should be heard in Refugio County. San Patricio County v. Nueces County, 492 S.W.3d 476, 488 (Tex. App.-Corpus

6

Christi 2016, pet. denied). We remanded the case with instructions that the trial court vacate and set aside its judgment and transfer the case to the 135th District Court of Refugio County, Texas. Id.

E. Tax Protest Suits

In the meantime, the Texas Supreme Court heard two cases pursuant to § 72.010 of the local government code, which affords that court original jurisdiction to determine which county is owed taxes on the petition of a property owner that is subject to multiple taxation. See In re Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC (CCL), 588 S.W.3d 275 (Tex. 2019); Occidental, 561 S.W.3d 146.

In Occidental, relators, which the court collectively referred to as Oxy, "own[ed] two massive commercial piers extending from the mainland of San Patricio County into the waters of Corpus Christi Bay that lie in Nueces County." 561 S.W.3d. at 150. The court held that "[t]he common law . . . supports treating docks, piers, and similar permanent facilities that are connected to the mainland of San Patricio County as a part of that county" and that the "taxes owed by Oxy on its Piers [were] due [to] San Patricio County, not Nueces County." Id. at 165. The court "direct[ed] the Nueces County Appraisal District to withdraw and cease from issuing tax assessments to Oxy for its Piers and other facilities which [it] held to be part of San Patricio County." Id.

The Texas Supreme Court heard another case pursuant to § 72.010 in CCL, 588 S.W.3d at 275. CCL petitioned the court for the same relief that was previously granted to Oxy, contending that the operative facts were the same. Id. at 276. The court observed:

The material facts are undisputed. In 2015, CCL began construction of a massive natural gas liquefaction and export facility on the northern shore of Corpus Christi Bay. The first phase of the project has been completed; a second phase remains under construction. The facility is built on land in San

7

Patricio County, with docks stretching out into the La Quinta Channel of the Bay, which is in Nueces County.

Id. CCL asserted that it was being taxed in both Nueces County and San Patricio County on the same property, just as Oxy was. Id. at 277. After CCL filed its petition, Nueces County decided to refrain from taxing the facility and explained that some taxing entities would be issuing refunds for taxes paid in tax years 2018 and 2019. Id. As a result, Nueces County argued that "by zeroing out the 2018 and 2019 appraisal values for CCL's facility, the Appraisal District has mooted the case." Id. Nueces County...