The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment against the plaintiff developer because it did not challenge all possible grounds supporting the summary judgment order
Special contributing author Laura Mueller, City Attorney for Dripping Springs
David A. Bauer, et al. v. City of Waco, No. 10-19-00020-CV (Tex. App.—Waco December 9, 2020) (mem. op.).
The Waco Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s vested rights and takings claims on summary judgment.
The plaintiff developer sued the city after being required to provide an easement for a water line and meet other requirements in the city’s code prior to construction of its project. The city required changes to various permit applications of the plaintiff prior to approval and required an easement for a previously placed waterline. The plaintiff developer sued the city for vested rights and takings, arguing the regulations were inapplicable due to the vesting of its original permit. Among its summary judgment arguments, the City argued that a declaration of the plaintiff’s vested rights would not resolve the issue because the ordinance in place at the time of initial permit vesting would yield the same result. As to the required easement, the City argued that the plaintiff did not seek a variance from the easement and could not claim a taking. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the city but the order did not provide specific reasons.
To appeal a summary judgment, the appealing party has to prove that any or all bases for the summary judgment is error. Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1995); Lesher v. Coyel, 435 S.W.3d 423, 429 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied). To establish a claim for vested rights under Chapter 245 of the Local Government Code the plaintiff needs to show that the city is required to review a permit application based on the regulations in effect at the time the original application is filed. See Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 245.002; Milestone Potranco Dev., Ltd., v. City of San Antonio, 298 S.W.3d 242, 248 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. denied). For a takings claim, the plaintiff needs to show that the action where the property was taken was done without consent of the property owner and that there has been a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue. Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 929 (Tex. 1998). The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s judgment on both the vesting rights and takings claims because the plaintiff failed to disprove every basis for the summary judgment including that the ordinance in effect for vesting would not have changed the result and that the original property owner had given consent for the installation of the water line.
If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Chief Justice Gray and Justices Davis and Neill. Opinion by Chief Justice Tom Gray.
