Korr, LLC. v. County of Gaines, No. 11-18-00130-CV (Tex.App.– Eastland May 29, 2020) (mem. op.).
[Special guest summary author Laura Mueller, City Attorney for Dripping Springs, Texas]
The case involves a claim under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) for an interpretation of a county regulation dealing with plats. The court of appeals held that the UDJA cannot be used if there is no ripe injury.
Korr, a land developer in the county, filed suit against the county under the UDJA based on a county regulation that requires a bond to cover the cost of electrical infrastructure prior to a plat being reviewed. Korr argued that the provision was preempted by the Public Utility Commission’s authority. Korr presented a plat that had already been approved and indicated but did not state that Korr had an interest in this and other properties in the county. The County filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which was granted. Korr appealed.
Korr presented no proof of Korr’s land ownership in the county, no active plat applications before the county and the listed plat had not required such a bond. Korr argued that despite having a ripe injury, the UDJA should still allow the suit, because it wished to develop property in the future. The court of appeals reviewed the requirements for standing in a UDJA claim, including the ripeness of a controversy. The court held that a ripe controversy is still required and noted Korr’s arguments in the trial court were all based on “hypothetical” situations. The court held that it could not issue an advisory decision and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal.
If you would like to read this opinion, click here. The panel consists of Chief Justice Bailey, Justices Stretcher and Wright.