San Jacinto River Auth. v. Burney, 01-18-00365-CV
| Decision Date | 04 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | NO. 01-18-00407-CV,NO. 01-18-00365-CV, NO. 01-18-00406-CV,01-18-00365-CV |
| Parties | SAN JACINTO RIVER AUTHORITY, Appellant v. Michael A. BURNEY, Ginger R. Burney, Charles A. Casey, Maureen S. Casey, John M. Daniel, Carolyn F. Daniel, Robert C. Miles, Sherry K. Miles, Jack L. Nowlin, Linda S. Nowlin, Barry L. Shepherd, Becky A. Shepherd, Charles H.F. Wherry, Diane S. Wherry, Rodney M. Wolf, and Nancy L. Wolf, Appellees San Jacinto River Authority, Appellant v. Charles J. Argento, Katharine Argento, Kristofer D. Buchan, Melissa Buchan, Brandon Burgess, Diane Burgess, Jeff Ensley, Anne Ensley, John Faulkinberry, Laurie D. Faulkinberry, John R. Freeman, Barbara Freeman, Kurt V. Huseman, Debbie L. Huseman, William E. Lange, Jennifer Wood Lange, David L. Miller, Sally T. Miller, William J. Napier, Jr., Christine D. Napier, James L. Revel, Louise W. Revel, Bernard F. Ryan, Cecilia M. Ryan, Dana M. Stegall, Danny C. Stegall, Todd R. Sumner, and Kimberly A. Sumner, Appellees San Jacinto River Authority, Appellant v. Vicente Medina, Ashley Medina, and Aris Antoniou, Appellees |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
William S. Helfand, Shane L. Kotlarsky, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, 24 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1400, Houston, TX 77046, for Appellant.
William Fred Hagans, Jennifer B. Rustay, Carl D. Kulhanek, Jr., Hagans Montgomery & Rustay, P.C., 3200 Travis, St., 4th Fl., Houston, TX 77006, Justin E. Vandenbout, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry, 1200 Smith St., Ste. 1400, Houston, TX 77002, Daniel P. Barton, The Barton Law Group, 1201 Shepherd Dr., Houston, TX 77007, Dennis Reich, Reich & Binstock, LLP, 4265 San Felipe, Ste. 1000, Houston, TX 77027, Vincent L. Marable III, Paul Webb, P.C., 221 North Houston St., Wharton, TX 77488, for Appellees in Case Number: 01-18-00365-CV.
William Fred Hagans, Jennifer B. Rustay, Carl D. Kulhanek, Jr., Hagans Montgomery & Rustay, P.C., 3200 Travis, St., 4th Fl., Houston, TX 77006, Vincent L. Marable III, Paul Webb, P.C., 221 North Houston St., Wharton, TX 777488, for Appellees in Case Number: 01-18-00406-CV.
William Fred Hagans, Jennifer B. Rustay, Carl D. Kulhanek, Jr., Hagans Montgomery & Rustay, P.C., 3200 Travis, St., 4th Fl., Houston, TX 77006, Allison H. Gabbert, The Gabbert Law Firm, 11511 Katy Freeway, Ste. 610, Houston, TX 77079, Daniel P. Barton, The Barton Law Group, 1201 Shepherd Dr., Houston, TX 77007, Dennis Reich, Reich & Binstock, LLP, 4265 San Felipe, Ste. 1000, Houston, TX 77027, Vincent L. Marable III, Paul Webb, P.C., 221 North Houston St., Wharton, TX 77488, for Appellees Case Number: 01-18-00407-CV.
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Massengale.
During Hurricane Harvey, the San Jacinto River Authority released water from Lake Conroe into the San Jacinto River. Owners of homes that flooded in Kingwood, Texas have sued the River Authority in the district courts of Harris County, seeking compensation for their inverse-condemnation and statutory takings claims. The River Authority filed Rule 91a motions to dismiss these three substantively identical lawsuits, which were denied. The River Authority now seeks interlocutory review.
Because the Legislature has given the Harris County civil courts at law exclusive jurisdiction over inverse-condemnation claims, the district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims. The district courts do, however, have subject-matter jurisdiction over the homeowners' statutory takings claims, and we affirm the denials of the motions to dismiss on grounds of governmental immunity, because the homeowners have pleaded sufficient facts to demonstrate that the takings claims have a basis in law and fact.
The San Jacinto River Authority is a water conservation and reclamation district created in 1937.1 Its functions include providing for the control, storage, preservation, distribution, conservation, and reclamation of water, including floodwater.2 The River Authority also may control, abate, or change any shortage or harmful excess of water.3
In 1973, the River Authority constructed a dam across the West Fork of the San Jacinto River, resulting in the formation of a reservoir named Lake Conroe. The River Authority now operates the dam and other infrastructure at Lake Conroe.
The homeowners in these interlocutory appeals allege that during Hurricane Harvey in late August 2017, the River Authority released rising water from Lake Conroe into the West Fork of the San Jacinto River, causing or exacerbating the downstream flooding of their homes in Kingwood. They allege three causes of action against the River Authority: inverse condemnation of their real and personal property; inverse condemnation by an "inundation, flood, flowage or drainage easement" over their property; and a statutory takings claim under Government Code section 2007.021. The only difference among the claims of the various homeowners at this stage is the varying physical location of their real property, and that factor is not a material difference for purposes of any of the legal issues presented by these interlocutory appeals. Many similar suits have been filed and currently are pending in various Harris County trial courts, including the county civil courts at law.
In these particular cases, the River Authority filed Rule 91a motions to dismiss the lawsuits as lacking any basis in law or fact. As a political subdivision of the state,4 it asserted governmental immunity as a ground for dismissal. The trial courts denied the motions. On appeal,5 the River Authority raises two issues. In the first issue, raised for the first time on appeal, it contends that the Harris County district courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the inverse-condemnation claims because exclusive jurisdiction belongs to the Harris County civil courts at law. In the second issue, the River Authority asserts that the homeowners failed to allege sufficient facts to establish the elements of a takings claim and thereby demonstrate a waiver of immunity.
Subject-matter jurisdiction is essential to a court’s authority to decide a case, cannot be waived, and may be raised for the first time on appeal.6
The River Authority asserts for the first time on appeal that the Harris County district courts lack jurisdiction over the inverse-condemnation claims because the Harris County county civil courts at law have exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to Government Code subsection 25.1032(c). That statute provides:
A county civil court at law has exclusive jurisdiction in Harris County of eminent domain proceedings, both statutory and inverse, if the amount in controversy in a statutory proceeding does not exceed the amount provided by Section 25.0003(c) in civil cases. Notwithstanding Section 21.013, Property Code, a party initiating a condemnation proceeding in Harris County may file a petition with the district clerk when the amount in controversy exceeds the amount provided by Section 25.0003(c). The amount in controversy is the amount of the bona fide offer made by the entity with eminent domain authority to acquire the property from the property owner voluntarily.
Inverse-condemnation claims and statutory condemnation claims are distinct categories of eminent-domain proceedings.7 A statutory eminent-domain or condemnation proceeding under the Property Code involves the government’s acquisition of real property.8 An inverse-condemnation action is a constitutional claim in which the property owner asserts that an entity with eminent-domain power intentionally performed acts that resulted in a "taking" of the property for public use, without formally condemning the property.9 A claimant seeking recovery for inverse condemnation must prove that the governmental entity intentionally took or damaged property for public use, or that the governmental entity was substantially certain that would be the result.10 Unlike inverse-condemnation claims,11 a statutory condemnation proceeding requires an entity with eminent-domain authority to make a bona fide offer to acquire the property from the owner voluntarily.12
Generally, Texas district courts and county courts at law have concurrent jurisdiction in eminent-domain cases.13 Harris County is an exception. Before September 1, 2015, county civil courts at law had exclusive jurisdiction of all eminent-domain proceedings in Harris County. The former statute provided: "A county civil court at law has exclusive jurisdiction in Harris County of eminent domain proceedings, both statutory and inverse, regardless of the amount in controversy."14 For cases filed on or after September 1, 2015, the Legislature modified the subject-matter jurisdiction of Harris County courts with respect to eminent-domain cases by amending subsection 25.1032(c) as follows:
A county civil court at law has exclusive jurisdiction in Harris County of eminent domain proceedings, both statutory and inverse , if the amount in controversy in a statutory proceeding does not exceed the amount provided by Section 25.0003(c) in civil cases. Notwithstanding Section 21.013, Property Code, a party initiating a condemnation proceeding in Harris County may file a petition with the district clerk when the amount in controversy exceeds the amount provided by Section 25.0003(c). The amount in controversy is the amount of the bona fide offer made by the entity with eminent domain authority to acquire the property from the property owner voluntarily [regardless of the amount in controversy].15
The River Authority contends that this statute gives the Harris County civil courts at law exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over the inverse-condemnation claims. In response, the homeowners assert that under the 2015 amendment, the Harris County district courts have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
San Jacinto River Auth. v. Medina
...takings claim included the physical takings claim alleged in the property owners' pleadings. San Jacinto River Auth. v. Burney , 570 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018). We agree and affirm.IThe San Jacinto River Authority is a conservation and reclamation district created in 19......
-
In re S.W.
...... (mem. op.) (same); San Jacinto River Auth. v. Burney, 570 S.W.3d 820, 835 (Tex. ......
-
City of Friendswood v. Tostado
......2001); Gulf Coast. Waste Disposal Auth. v. Four Seasons Equip., Inc ., 321. S.W.3d 168, 173 ...2004);. San Jacinto River Auth. v. Burney , 570 S.W.3d 820,. 833 (Tex. ......
-
City of Friendswood v. Tostado
......2001); Gulf Coast. Waste Disposal Auth. v. Four Seasons Equip., Inc ., 321. S.W.3d 168, 173 ...2004);. San Jacinto River Auth. v. Burney , 570 S.W.3d 820,. 833 (Tex. ......