Texas Supreme Court holds city’s civil-enforcement of utility payment ordinance was not an unconstitutional taking

Quote

 

City of Baytown v Alan Schrock, 20-0309 (Tex. May 13, 2022) 

In this takings case, the Texas Supreme Court held the City of Bayton (City) did not commit a taking by withholding utility service in order to collect unpaid utility bills.  

Schrock owned property that he would lease to tenants. The City’s ordinances required landlords to either guarantee payment for utility bills or to file a declaration with the City stating that the landlord would not guarantee its tenant’s utility payments. The City also had an ordinance prohibiting the connection of new utility services at properties encumbered by outstanding utility bills. At some point, utility bills for the City’s water service to the property went unpaid and Schrock did not file any declaration. Schrock contested unpaid amounts (pointing to his tenant as the responsible party) but the City, after a hearing, placed a lien on the property. The City then refused to connect utilities to the property when one of Schrock’s tenants requested it, which caused the tenant to cancel the lease. Because no utilities were connected, no tenants rented, the property fell into disrepair. Schrock sued the City for inverse condemnation and other claims, primarily alleging that the City’s refusal to reconnect his utility service violated Tex Loc. Gov’t Code § 552.0025 (which prohibits municipalities from conditioning utility service connections on payment of outstanding utility bills incurred by other customers residing at the same address.). The trial court ruled for the City, but the court of appeals reversed, noting a fact question existed. The City appealed.  

 A regulatory takings claim is one in which “the plaintiff complains that the government through regulation so burdened his property as to deny him its economic value or unreasonably interfere with its use and enjoyment.” The Court made a distinction between a regulation that directly regulates land use and one which merely impairs the use of the property because of its enforcement. The Court held that the City’s providing utilities to the property was a service; its regulation of that service was not a regulation of the property itself. The true nature of Schrock’s claim lies in the City’s wrongful enforcement of its ordinance, not in an intentional taking or damage of his property for public use. The Court noted that nearly every civil-enforcement action results in a property loss of some kind. Property damage due to civil enforcement of an ordinance unrelated to land use, standing on its own, is not enough to sustain regulatory takings claims. 

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Justice Bland delivered the opinion. Justice Young delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Lehrmann, Justice Blacklock, and Justice Busby joined. 

Texas Supreme Court holds general-law cities cannot impose a revenue-based licensing fee for construction trash haulers

Quote

 

Builder Recovery Services, LLC v. The Town of Westlake, Texas, 21-0173, (Tex, May 20, 2022) 

In this case, the Texas Supreme Court held that general law cities have limited authority to impose license fees for solid waste collections.  

The Town of Westlake is a general-law municipality that imposed a percentage-of-revenue license fee on companies like Builder Recovery Services, LLC (BRS) which hauls trash away from construction sites.  The Town has a percentage agreement with Republic Services, which performs regular residential and commercial trash collection for the Town, but which also included construction site hauls. The Greater Fort Worth Builders Association sent the Town a letter questioning the Town’s legal authority to make Republic the exclusive provider of construction trash-hauling services. BRS and the Town’s staff attempted to agree on terms for a license, but no agreement was reached. BRS began operating in the Town without a license. When the Town cited BRS for operating without a license, it brought suit. The Town amended the fee amount during the suit. The trial court ruled the original fee was invalid and rejected the remainder of the BRS claims.  Both sides appealed. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, by affirming the judgment favoring the Town but holding the BRS claim regarding the original fee was moot. BRS appealed.  

General-law cities, like the Town of Westlake, possess only those powers and privileges that the State expressly confers upon them.  A claim that a percentage-of-revenue fee of any size is unlawful is not mooted by an intervening adjustment to the size of the fee.  The court made a distinction between a licensing fee and a franchise fee. The Town’s relationship with Republic is governed by an exclusive franchise agreement as described in section 364.034 of the Health and Safety Code. The Court assumed the Town had the authority to require a license, then focused its analysis on the types of licensing fees allowed. A licensing fee is meant to recoup administrative costs of the licensing system. The Town does not regulate the price of trash hauling in this instance. How much BRS charges its customers to haul their trash “is none of the Town’s concern, and this privately negotiated, fluctuating amount has nothing to do with how much money the Town needs to administer its trash-hauling regulations.”  The Court held it was unlikely that the Legislature’s grant to general-law cities the generic authority to regulate trash hauling was intended to include an implied power for a revenue-based charge of this nature.  While a licensing fee properly tied to administrative costs is allowed, it cannot be revenue-based. Next, the Court held that while the fee and remainder of the regulations appear to be a packaged deal, the ordinance has a severability clause. But what remains was not argued, so the Court remanded the case. 

 Panel consists of Chief Justice Hecht, and Justices Lehrmann, Boyd, Devine, Blacklock, Busny, Bland, Huddle, and Young. Court of Appeals’ judgment reversed; Remanded to Court of Appeals. Opinion by Justice Blacklock can be read here. Docket page with attorney information found here. 

First District Court of Appeals holds property owner could not bring a takings claim based on judicial order regarding substandard building

Quote

Jaime Jaramillo v. The City of Texas City, 01-20-00654-CV, (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], Feb. 8, 2022, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

This is a takings case brought after the City initiated an enforcement action for a dilapidated building. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the property owner’s claims.

Jaramillo entered into an Agreed Order of Abatement with the City where the City would be able to abate and demolish the structures on the real property belonging to Jaramillo any time after a certain date if he did not comply with the ordinances and the International Property Maintenance Code. After reviewing the Agreed Order with the prosecutor and signing it, Jaramillo filed suit two weeks later claiming a taking of his property, denial of procedural due process, fraud, and civil conspiracy. The City filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction due to entering an unappealable order and sovereign immunity. The trial court granted the motion. Jaramillo appealed.

The court found that there was no waiver of immunity asserted as immunity cannot be waived for an intentional tort.  It further found civil conspiracy is a derivative tort; therefore, it cannot stand alone. Under his due process claim, Jaramillo agreed in the order that the building was substandard.  A court, not an administrative body, entered the order based on the agreement. As a result, no procedural due process was violated.  Jaramillo failed to preserve any errors before accepting and signing the Agreed Order. The Order was affirmed.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Guerra. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rivas-Molloy can be read here. Docket page with attorney information found here.

U.S. Supreme Court holds Austin on-premise/off-premise sign regulation is content neutral

Quote

Special contributing author Laura Mueller, City Attorney for Dripping Springs

City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan Nat’l Advert. Of Austin, LLC., et al, No. 20-1029 (April 21, 2022).

The primary question in regulating off-premise signs differently than on-premise signs is whether such a regulation implicates the First Amendment in a way that requires strict scrutiny or instead allows intermediate scrutiny.  The Supreme Court of the United States held an Austin city regulation treating on-premise and off-premise signs differently is not content-based and so can be reviewed under intermediate scrutiny.

An outdoor advertiser, Reagan, attempted to obtain permits from the City of Austin to transition its off-premise signs, otherwise known as billboards, to electronic billboards.  The applications were denied by the City because the signs were off-premise signs which are not allowed to be transitioned to electronic signs although the same restriction did not apply equally to on-premise signs.  The City’s definition of “off-premise sign” at the applicable period included:

“a sign advertising a business, person, activity, goods, products, or services not located on the site where the sign is installed, or that directs persons to any location not on that site.”

Austin, Tex., City Code §25–10–3(11) (2016).  After the denial, Reagan sued the City under the United States Constitution based on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment as interpreted by Reed v. Town of Gilbert, arguing that the distinction between on-premise and off-premise signs was a content-based regulation that required a strict scrutiny analysis. 576 U. S. 155 (2015). The district court held that the regulation differentiating between on- and off-premise signs were content-neutral and valid under intermediate scrutiny. In Reagan’s appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the distinction was content-based and that it required strict scrutiny because the distinction affected both non-commercial and commercial speech and it required the City to read the sign to regulate it. The City appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and it granted certiorari.

Under Reed, a land-use regulation requires review under strict scrutiny, a standard almost impossible to meet to validate the regulation, if it is content-based in how it regulates speech or “applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.” Reed, 576 U.S. at 163.  If it is content-neutral it must meet intermediate scrutiny which means the regulation is “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.”  Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989).  The Court in this case held that even though the regulation required that the sign be read to determine how to regulate it, the regulation did not “single out any topic or subject matter for differential treatment.”  Reagan at 8.  Instead, the regulation was focused on the location of the sign.  The Court stated that its ruling is consistent with the Reed case and:

It is the dissent that would upend settled understandings of the law. Where we adhere to the teachings of history, experience, and precedent, the dissent would hold that tens of thousands of jurisdictions have presumptively violated the First Amendment, some for more than half a century, and that they have done so by use of an on-/off-premises distinction this Court has repeatedly reviewed and never previously questioned. For the reasons we have explained, the Constitution does not require that bizarre result.

Reagan at 13.

The Court reversed the court of appeals opinion and remanded the question of whether the regulation meets the lower standard of intermediate scrutiny to the court of appeals for review. The Court also did not issue a holding related to whether a city can treat commercial speech differently to non-commercial speech.  Reagan at fn.3.   However, it did reference cases that provided for such commercial versus non-commercial distinctions favorably.  Reagan at 9-10.  See Suffolk Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Hulse, 439 U. S. 808 (1978); Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U. S. 490, 503–512 (1981) (plurality opinion); Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557 (1980).  Practically, this is a minor change to the Reed analysis that only applies to on-and-off-premise signs, but could have implications for other sign regulations that are broad and do not target a specific communicative content.  This case does not approve or disapprove a distinction between commercial and non-commercial content.

Sotomayer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C.J., and Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined.  Breyer, J. and Alito, J. concurring.  Thomas, J. filed a dissenting opinion, in which Gorsuch and Barrett, JJ., joined.

Breyer Concurrence:  Does not agree with Reed, but agrees that this opinion is consistent with Reed.  “But the First Amendment is not the Tax Code. Its purposes are often better served when judge-made categories (like “content discrimination”) are treated, not as bright-line rules, but instead as rules of thumb.”

Alito concurring and dissenting.  Does not agree that on-/off-premise distinction is content neutral, but instead the court of appeals should look at the billboards in question on a case-by-case basis to see if the City’s ordinance is unconstitutional.

Thomas Dissent:  The bright-line rule of Reed is that if the sign has to be read to be regulated then it is a content-based restriction.  No communicative content can be a basis for regulation.

If you would like to read this opinion click here.

US 5th Circuit held officer entitled to qualified immunity due to suspects resisting placement in vehicle

Quote

Craig, et al. v. Martin, 19-10013, (5th Cir. Feb. 15, 2022)

Special guest author: Joshua Galicia, Law Offices of Ryan Henry, PLLC

This Fifth Circuit appeal stems from a series of §1983 claims, all of which were dismissed under the appellant’s motion for summary judgment except the officer’s assertion of qualified immunity for the excessive force claims. The Fifth Circuit reversed the trial court’s denial, determined the officer was entitled to qualified immunity and dismissed the claims.

Officer William Martin (“Martin”) received a call about a “disturbance” involving A.C., Jacqueline Craig’s (“Craig”) minor child. Martin responded alone. On scene, Martin activated his bodycam and began a conversation with Craig, which escalated in hostility until Craig was yelling at Martin. Craig’s adult child Brea Hymond (“Hymond”) was recording the event on her cell phone.  Craig’s minor children are J.H. and K.H. J.H. stepped in between Craig and Martin, to which Martin grabbed J.H. and pulled her out from between them. K.H. then shoved Martin from behind. Martin proceeded to tase Craig to the ground and then handcuffed her. Martin then restrained J.H. and proceeded to walk Craig and J.H. to his vehicle. K.H. stood in front of the passenger door, in an apparent attempt to prevent Craig and J.H. from being placed within. Martin ordered K.H. to move and, upon refusing to do so, struck K.H., after which she moved out of the way. J.H. then further resisted being placed in the vehicle by keeping her leg out until Martin kicked her leg once, after which she placed her leg inside the vehicle.  Finally, Martin placed Hymond under arrest, who had been verbally harassing Martin throughout the previous events. Hymond refused to identify herself, so Martin raised her handcuffed arms behind her back to gain compliance.  Craig, individually and on behalf of her minor children, K.H. and J.H., and Hymond sued Martin for unlawful arrest and excessive use of force. The trial court dismissed most of the claims, but denied Martin’s qualified immunity defense. Martin appealed.

The Fifth Circuit divided its analysis into two parts: whether the officer’s actions were excessive and, if they were, whether the actions “violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable [officer] would have known.” For the first part, the Fifth Circuit found that the officer’s actions were reasonable given the nature of the actions taken against Martin by each party, particularly that he was by himself for the majority of these interactions while each individual was performing said actions and that there was video evidence, which contradicted some of the appellees’ allegations in their pleadings. For the second part, even if the officer’s actions had been found to be excessive, the precedent cited by appellees was noted as failing to find caselaw which showed individuals who were actively resisting officers as was present in this case to the point that Martin should have known he was violating clearly established rights. The court reversed the trial court order, held Martin was entitled to qualified immunity, and dismissed the remaining claims.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. The panel consists of Chief Circuit Judge Owen and Circuit Judges Barksdale and Duncan. Opinion by Chief Circuit Judge Owen.

Fort Worth Court of Appeals holds Plaintiffs properly plead constitutional challenges to City’s short-term rental ordinance

Quote

 

City of Grapevine v. Ludmilla B. Muns, et al, 02-19-00257-CV (Tex. App. – Fort Worth, Dec. 23, 2021)

This is an opinion on rehearing where the Fort Worth Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial court’s order regarding the validity of the City’s short-term rental ordinance. [Comment: warning, this is a long opinion – 50 pages.]

The City asserted its zoning ordinance was written in a way that prevented short-term rentals (STRs), but some “bed and breakfasts” were allowed.  However, there was sporadic enforcement. After an increase in complaints about negative effects from STRs, the City conducted a study.  At the end of the study, the City passed an ordinance banning short-term rentals (STRs) in the entire city. The City provided a 45-day grace period before enforcement would begin. Several property owners and commercial real estate services sued to invalidate the ordinance. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment, which were denied. The City appealed.

The City first contended the Plaintiffs failed to appeal any decisions to the board of adjustment and therefore failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. Generally, a party must exhaust the administrative remedies available under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code before seeking judicial review of an administrative official’s decision. However, the Plaintiffs did not apply for permits or otherwise receive any enforcement notification to which they must appeal. Statements made about the City’s intent to enforce an ordinance, without more, is not the type of administrative action over which an appeal is triggered. Appealable actions are those actual determinations made in the act or process of compelling a property owner’s compliance with a City ordinance. Information-only statements are not appealable administrative determinations.  Further, the Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance, which does not always require exhaustion. Generally, administrative bodies do not have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of statutes and ordinances. And while constitutional challenges are not “globally exempted” from the exhaustion requirement, if the administrative body lacked the ability to “render a relief that would moot the claim” then no exhaustion is required.  The board of adjustment lacked the authority to grant the Plaintiffs’ the right to conduct an STR, so no exhaustion is required. Next, the City argued that STRs do not fit within the definition of a “single-family detached dwelling” under its zoning code because STRs are not occupied by a single-family but are occupied by groups of people. However, the City’s code defines the word “family” in such a way that it does not require that the people living as a “single housekeeping unit” be related by blood or marriage. It also has no duration of occupancy limit. As a result, by its own wording, the code does not prohibit STRs as long as the occupancy fall within the common and ordinary meaning of “family.”  The City next argued the Plaintiffs did not directly challenge the validity of the STR ordinance (only an interpretation of whether it applied to them) so no declaratory relief can be granted.  However, the court found their retroactivity, due-course-of-law, and takings claims turn on whether the existing code allowed STRs. To that extent, they have a valid justiciable controversy. Under the takings analysis, the court held that although a property owner generally has no vested right to use his property in a certain way without restriction, they have a vested right in the real property, which includes the ability to lease. From a constitutional standpoint, that is sufficient to trigger a protected property right interest for jurisdictional purposes. This, along with the fact the court found that STRs were not expressly prohibited by the wording of the ordinance,  creates a fact issue as to whether the Plaintiffs suffered a taking. The court also noted that, contrary to the City’s arguments, lost profits are a relevant factor to consider in assessing the property’s value and the severity of the economic impact on a property owner. The Plaintiffs pled and submitted evidence to support that STRs “generate higher average rent than long-term leases, even after expenses” and that the STR Ordinance prevents them from “participating in an active, lucrative market for [STRs].” Next, the court did agree with the City that the regulation of STRs is not preempted by the Tax Code, as alleged by the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not point to any provision in either the Tax Code or the Property Code that implies that the legislature meant to limit or forbid local regulations banning STRs. The court then addressed the retroactive law arguments, holding that a “settled” right is different than a vested right and the Plaintiffs asserted the STR ordinance impaired their settled property rights under the common law and under the City’s code to lease their properties on a short-term basis. The issue is not about the “property owners’ right to use their property in a certain way,” but about the owners’ “retaining their well-settled right to lease their property.” Next, in the substantive-due-process context, a constitutionally protected right must be a vested right that has some definitive, rather than merely potential existence. Property owners do not acquire a constitutionally protected vested right in property uses once commenced or in zoning classifications once made. Thus, although the Homeowners have a vested right in their properties, they do not have a vested right under the Zoning Ordinance to use them as STRs.  However, the court found they do have a fundamental leasing right, which is sufficient to plead, jurisdictionally, a due-course-of-law claim. The court clarified in this rehearing opinion, that its holding on this point is limited to the fact a property owner has a fundamental right to lease, but the durational limits may be valid or may be invalid depending on the extent of the regulatory intrusion into that right. The intrusion goes to the merits of the case, which the court declined to address as part of the interlocutory appeal.  In short, the Plaintiffs properly plead all claims for jurisdictional purposes, except a claim under a preemption theory.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consisted of Chief Justice Sudderth and Justices Kerr and Gabriel.  Opinion on rehearing by Justice Kerr.

U.S. 5th Circuit remands inmate’s sec. 1983 claims to evaluate whether prison disciplinary decision overlaps with excessive force claims

Quote

Gray v. White, 20-30218, (US 5th Cir – Nov. 17, 2021)

This is a §1983/excessive force case where the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s granting of the county’s summary judgment motion.

Timothy Gray is an inmate at the Elayn Hunt Correctional Center. Grey asserts Captain Wells and Major White attacked Gray in his cell without provocation, pulling him from his bunk and beating him. He was sprayed with a chemical agent and not allowed to wash it off. Grey asserts after he passed out he was put into a transport van, in restraints, and was beaten en route.  The County asserts Wells approached Grey for a targeted search. Grey was intoxicated and had vomited on himself. When Grey refused orders designed to move him to the showers to clean up he was grabbed and then became violent. The prison disciplinary board found Gray guilty of various violations. When Grey sued the individual officers who allegedly beat him, the officers moved for summary judgment based on Heck v Humphry (holding a conviction precludes relitigating aspects overlapping in a civil suit). Further, the officers asserted Grey failed to exhaust his remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and is therefore precluded from suit. The trial court granted the officer’s motion and Grey appealed.

Heck holds  a prisoner may not “seek[] damages in a § 1983 suit” if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” Heck applies to both the validity and the duration of the confinement. A ruling by a prison disciplinary board also triggers the preclusive effects of Heck. However, Heck is not “implicated by a prisoner’s challenge that threatens no consequence for his conviction or the duration of his sentence.”  The court held the record was insufficient to determine whether, or which of, Gray’s claims are barred by Heck. The disciplinary reports list various factual findings but do not state which of these findings were necessary to his convictions.  As a result, the defendants failed to meet their summary judgment burden. Next, Under PLRA Grey was required to file a proper complaint about events after the shower before bringing suit. Gray failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for the claims of excessive force after he was taken from the shower area.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Smith, Stewart, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Smith. Judge Willett concurred in judgement alone. Attorney for Appellee is Amber Mandina Babin, of New Orleans, Louisiana. Attorney for the Appellant is Donna Unkel Grodner, of Baton Rouge, Louisiana

The plaintiff failed to show that damages were insufficient in a condemnation case where there was sufficient evidence supporting the judgment of the trial court.  

Quote

 

Special contributing author Laura Mueller, City Attorney for Dripping Springs

Castellanos v. Harris County, Texas and City of Baytown, Texas., No. 01-20-00414-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct 7, 2021) (mem. op.).

In this appeal from a trial court’s judgment in a condemnation case, the First Court of Appeals in Houston affirmed the trial court’s judgment because there was sufficient evidence to support the amount in their judgment as it related to the condemned property.

The plaintiffs’ property was the subject of a condemnation case including a road easement, water line easement, a temporary construction easement, and damages for the remainder of the project. After the trial court issued its judgment, the plaintiffs appealed arguing that the amount of compensation in the judgment should have been higher and that their suggested jury instruction regarding compensation to make changes to the home post-condemnation should have been given.

The Texas Constitution requires adequate compensation to any property owner whose property is taken by a governmental entity.  Tex. Const. art. I, § 17(a).  This value is determined by fair market value on the date of the taking which can take into account both the current use and the highest and best use.  See Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner, 505 S.W.3d 580, 611 (Tex. 2016).  When only a portion of the property is taken both the value of what is taken and the damages to the remainder are both used to determine compensation.  Morello v. Seaway Crude Pipeline Co., LLC, 585 S.W.3d 1, 29–31 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied).  In addition, to complain about a jury instruction on appeal, the plaintiff needs to make such objection at the trial.  Tex. R. Civ. P. 274; Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.  To properly bring a claim that a ground of recovery or defense was not considered, the avenue would have been a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a motion to disregard a jury finding. Those motions were not filed.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial jury’s compensation amount because the plaintiffs did not prove that the evidence presented at trial required a different fair market value for the property and did not properly object to the lack of award for changes to the house post-condemnation.

The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment because the plaintiffs failed to conclusively establish that the amount of compensation was insufficient.

If you would like to read this opinion click here.   Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Guerra, and Farris.  Opinion by Justice Kelly.

 

A charter election proposition that receives more votes than a second charter proposition on the same ballot can invalidate a second charter proposition if proper notice is given. 

Quote

Special contributing author Laura Mueller, City Attorney for Dripping Springs

Hotze v. Sylvestor Turner, Mayor  and City of Houston, Texas., No. 14-19-00959-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct 12, 2021).

In this appeal from a trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the city and mayor, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston affirmed the trial court’s judgment because the election ordinance correctly affirmed that only one ballot proposition of two could be passed.

The City’s charter amendment election ballot contained two propositions on expenditures that were contradictory.  Both passed.  The plaintiff sued the mayor and the city arguing that: (1) the clause invalidating the second proposition was not properly in the first ballot proposition; and (2) that the clause invalidating the second ballot proposition conflicts with state law and the Texas Constitution.  The trial court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment that the first ballot proposition was the only valid amendment   The plaintiff appealed.

The primary issue is the validity of two charter amendment propositions related to financial limitations of the city that were on the same ballot. The first ballot proposition included a clause outside of quotes stating that:

“If another proposition for a Charter amendment relating to limitations on increases in City revenues is approved at the same election at which this proposition is also approved, and if this proposition receives the higher number of favorable votes, then this proposition shall prevail and the other shall not become effective.”

Both ballot propositions passed, but due to the language in the first ballot proposition, and the first ballot proposition passing with more votes, only the first ballot proposition was deemed valid.  Even though this clause was not within the quoted portion of the ballot proposition it is still valid because voters are “presumed to be familiar with every measure on the ballot.”  Dacus v. Parker, 466 S.W.3d 820, 825 (Tex. 2015).  Not only was the language in the ballot indicating that only one proposition may be valid, newspaper articles stated that this was a possibility at the time of the election.  Section 9.005 of the Texas Local Government Code states that a ballot proposition is adopted if a majority of qualified voters vote for the proposition.  Both propositions were approved and adopted, but the invalidating clause in the first proposition was still effective to invalidate the second proposition without violating Section 9.005 and by extension the Texas Constitution.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the City.

The dissent stated that the invalidating clause was an unconstitutional and illegal poison pill provision and should be held void, especially considering that the second ballot proposition was voter driven while the first ballot proposition was city driven.

If you would like to read this opinion click here.   The Dissent can be read here. Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.  Majority Opinion by Justice Hassan.  Dissenting Opinion by Justice Jewell.

 

U.S. Fifth Circuit holds standing for First Amendment violation can be shown through chilled speech without the need for actual arrest or citation.

Quote

   

Special contributing author Laura Mueller, City Attorney for Dripping Springs

Anthony Barilla v. City of Houston, Tex., No. 20-20535 (5th Cir. Sept. 10, 2021).

In this appeal for dismissal for lack of standing by the district court, the U.S. Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s order, holding that the intention to engage in busking (playing music for tips) plus the ordinance regulating the activity was sufficient to show standing on his First Amendment claim.

The plaintiff sued the city after his busking permit to play music for tips expired. He desired to busk in other parts of the city but was kept from doing so based on the need to get a permit and the ordinance that prohibits busking in most areas of the city.  He chose not to busk but instead to file suit against the city.  The city argued that the plaintiff had not proved an actual injury or standing because he had not been arrested, denied a permit, or cited for busking.  The district court granted the city’s motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff’s lack of standing.

To prove standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate an injury in fact by showing that the plaintiff: (1) has the serious intention of engaging in conduct that affects a constitutional interest; (2) that the conduct is regulated or prohibited; and (3) the threat of enforcement against the conduct is substantial.  Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979).  Both music and solicitation for times are constitutionally protected.   See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989).  Standing existed in this case because the plaintiff had shown a serious intention to busk as he had engaged in the activity previously, and the activity of busking is constitutionally protected.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further review on the standing issue.

The court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s dismissal on the basis of standing because the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of a serious interest in engaging in constitutionally protected activity that is being regulated/prohibited by the city.

If you would like to read this opinion, click here.   Panel consists of Chief Judge Owen and Judges Clement and Higginson.  Opinion by Judge Stephen A. Higginson.

Tyler Court of Appeals holds a motion for new trial did not extend the time to perfect an accelerated appeal

Quote

SignAd, Ltd. V. The City of Hudson, 12-21-00056-CV, (Tex. App – Tyler, Sept. 15, 2021)

This case is mainly procedural, and the Tyler Court of Appeals held SignAd failed to timely file its notice of appeal, either as an interlocutory appeal or of a final judgment.

This is a billboard construction case where the City sought injunctive relief and civil penalties asserting SignAd violated its local ordinances. SignAd asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment, compensation for loss of the billboard if ordered to remove it, inverse condemnation, unenforceability of the ordinance against SignAd, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The trial court issued various orders but the order of contention is a January 19, 2021 order granting the City’s first amended motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The parties disagree as to whether the January 19th order was a final order or is interlocutory. The order contained various findings including that SignAd lacks standing to bring its counterclaim for declaratory judgment, SignAd’s billboards exceed the size limitations for commercial signs, and that SignAd cannot maintain its billboards under the ordinance even if it achieved a total victory in this case.

The court of appeals held if the order is an appealable interlocutory order, the notice of appeal was due to be filed within twenty days after the judgment or order was signed, i.e., February 8.  SignAd filed its notice of appeal on April 13th.  SignAd’s motion for a new trial did not extend the time to perfect an accelerated appeal. But even if not interlocutory a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the judgment is signed or within ninety days after the judgment is signed if any party timely files a motion for new trial. However, any motion for new trial was due to be filed by February 18. SignAd filed its motion for new trial on February 22. The certificate of service attached to the motion for new trial reflects that it was served on February 16; however, the motion is file marked February 22. Thus, the motion was late and did not extend the time for filing the notice of appeal.  And an “order overruling an untimely new trial motion cannot be the basis of appellate review, even if the trial court acts within its plenary power period.”  As a result, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Worthen, and Justices Hoyle and Neeley. Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction. Memorandum Opinion per curiam can be read here. Docket page with attorney information found here.

13th Court of Appeals holds City sufficiently complied with TOMA and Tax Code in 2019 when it adopted its annual tax rate

Quote

Leftwich v City of Harlingen, 13-20-00110-CV (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi, Sep. 9, 2021).

This is a declaratory judgment suit to declare the city violated procedural requirements when it adopted its tax rate in 2019. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held no alleged violation constituted a waiver of the City’s immunity.

Leftwich alleges the City violated several statutory requirements in 2019 when it adopted its tax rate, including (1) the published notice failed to conform to the “date, time[,] and location” requirements of Texas Local Government Code § 140.010(c),  (2) the City failed to meet the deadline to adopt the tax rate (requiring a vote on proposed tax rate “not be earlier than the third day or later than the [fourteenth] day after the date of the second public hearing”); (3) the City violated TOMA by not allowing public comment “before or during” the consideration of the of the tax ordinances and various other procedural deficiencies. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. Leftwich appealed.

The court first noted that TOMA’s waiver of sovereign immunity only extends to mandamus or injunctive relief for actual or threatened violations of TOMA, not to suits for declaratory relief.  Further, under TOMA, substantial compliance is sufficient. The location of a meeting may be sufficient without including the full street address, name of the city, or meeting room, so long as the notice sufficiently apprises the public of the location.  Here, the term “town hall” sufficiently put the public on notice of the location of the meeting. No general waiver of immunity exists under the UDJA.  Plaintiff sought a judgment “declaring that the[o]rdinances are invalid and void ab initio” due to appellees’ alleged TOMA and tax code violations. The alleged TOMA violation during the meeting focused on the City Council not taking public comments before voting on the first reading of the tax ordinance. However, the mayor was clearly heard on camera, prior to the final vote on the first reading of each ordinance, asking for discussion, to which no one responded. Assuming, arguendo, that the mayor’s call for discussion was not clearly directed to the public, Leftwich would remain unsuccessful as that was only the first reading. The ordinance was not adopted until the second reading. Only an action taken in violation of TOMA is voidable.  Under the tax code, no requirement exists that two publications exist for public hearings, only that two public hearings are held and that notice is published. Under § 26.06(e) of the Texas Tax Code, the City was required to hold a meeting to vote on the tax ordinances not “earlier than the third day or later than the [fourteenth] day after the date of the second public hearing.” However § 26.06(e) provides no authority for a court to enjoin the collection of taxes for failure to comply with § 26.06(e), which is what Plaintiff seeks.  Plaintiff further asserts the councilmember making the motion failed to follow the specific quoted language for the motion contained within the statute. However, after reviewing the record, the court concluded the motion followed the important parts of the statutory language, verbatim.  Leftwich next asserted the City failed to properly post the necessary tax information on the City’s website.  However, Leftwich failed to present evidence that would raise a fact issue as to whether the City previously posted the notice to the website. The court concluded the undisputed language which was present meets the requirements of Texas Tax Code § 26.05(b)(2), which requires the notice be published after the ordinance is adopted. Leftwich failed to allege jurisdiction under TOMA or the Tax Code for any alleged violation.  Finally, while Plaintiff attempts to bring a First Amendment claim, he failed to brief the claim and therefore waived it.

If you would like to read this opinion click here.  Panel consists of Justices Benavides, Hinojosa and Silva. Memorandum opinion by Justice Silva.

Dallas Court of Appeals holds trial court had jurisdiction for BOA appeal only, but no monetary or constitutional claims could survive the board’s plea

Quote

 

City of Dallas, et al v. PDT Holdings, Inc., et al. 05-21-00018-CV  (Tex. App. – Dallas, August 24, 2021).

This is an appeal from a board of adjustment decision where the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part.

PDT Holdings, Inc (“PDT”) applied for a permit from the City to build a duplex on its property in Dallas.  PDT submitted building plans, which were approved and began construction. However, a City inspector cited PDT and issued a stop work order on the grounds that the structure did not comply with the thirty-six-foot height restriction. PDT adjusted the plans down to 36 feet, but was then told the actual height restriction was twenty-six feet due to the residential proximity slope (RPS) ordinance after it had completed 90% of the construction.  PDT sought a variance for the height restriction (three story duplex) but the variance was denied by the board of adjustment (“BOA”).  PDT appealed to district court but also sought a variety of monetary damages caused to the project. The matter was temporarily abated by agreement and the parties resubmitted to the BOA (with all new members), which again denied the request. The BOA filed a plea to the jurisdiction which was denied. The BOA appealed.

A district court has subject matter jurisdiction only to decide whether the Board’s decision was illegal under section 211.011.  The BOA argued the original appeal to district court was timely but attempted to assert PDT had to appeal the 2nd denial and failed to do so. The Board cites no authority for this requirement other than the general requirement that a petition for writ of certiorari must be filed within ten days of the Board’s decision. The court held the second BOA decision did not change the substance of the controversy between the parties or the issues before the trial court.  Further, nothing demonstrates the trial court lost jurisdiction over the first decision, over which it would still be allowed to proceed. As a result, the trial court properly denied the plea as to the illegality question only. The court next held that it must evaluate jurisdiction based on each claim. PDT did not specify what cause of action entitled it to recover damages or cite express authority waiving governmental immunity for recovery of damages. The plain language of section 211.011(f) does not authorize an award of damages. Further, there is no implied right of action to recover money damages for violation of the due course-of-law provision of the Texas Constitution. The Texas Constitution authorizes suits for equitable or injunctive relief only. But this limited waiver of immunity exists only to the extent the plaintiff has pleaded a viable constitutional claim. The court agreed with the BOA that PDT  does not have a vested property right in obtaining a variance from the RPS ordinance.  The mere existence of a building permit does not render an ordinance unenforceable. A person does not acquire a vested right in a building permit issued in violation of an ordinance. Here, jurisdiction exists for judicial review of the Board’s decision under section 211.011 only. The plea should have been granted for all other claims.

If you would like to read this opinion click here.  Panel consists of Justices Nowell, Osborne and Pederson. Opinion by Justice Nowell.

Fourth Court of Appeals holds plaintiff suing for BOA decision must be given opportunity to replead to show timing of when the BOA decision was filed in board’s offices

Quote

Alpha Securities, LLC, v City of Fredericksburg, 04-20-00447-CV (Tex. App. – San Antonio, Aug. 10, 2021, no pet h.).

This is a board of adjustment appeal and declaratory judgment action where the San Antonio Court of Appeals agreed no jurisdiction existed, but remanded to provide the Plaintiff the opportunity to replead.

Alpha Securities purchased real property in Fredericksburg’s historical district. It sought a variance to expand its doors so the building could be used for commercial uses. The historic district’s review board approved the expansion of one door, but not the other on Milam St.  As a result, Alpha Securities was unable to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, water and electrical services. Alpha Securities appealed the determination to the City’s Board of Adjustment (BOA), and the BOA denied relief. Alpha sued the City, which filed a plea to the jurisdiction. The trial court granted the plea and Alpha appealed.

Alpha’s first argument, that the City did not timely seek a ruling on the plea, was overruled. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and courts cannot acquire subject matter jurisdiction by estoppel.  Alpha attempted to bring ultra vires claims but did not include any specific officials. Such claims were properly denied. To the extent Alpha Securities intended to establish that the review board and BOA violated the law, including its constitutional rights, the UDJA does not waive the City’s governmental immunity.  Next, the court analyzed the timeliness of the appeal. The appeal clock does not start to run at the time of the BOA decision- rather when the BOA’s decision “is filed in the board’s office.” The pleadings do not establish the date when the BOA’s decision was filed in the board’s office. Because Alpha Securities’ pleadings are insufficient to establish jurisdiction but do not affirmatively demonstrate an incurable defect, the trial court should have given Alpha the opportunity to replead. [Comment: this appears to require pleadings to affirmatively list the specific dates for deadline compliance in order to establish jurisdiction].  The City asserts Alpha repled three times and should not be allowed to do so again. However, the Fourth Court determined that was inconsequential in this case. If the trial court determines the plea is meritorious and the pleadings are deficient, the plaintiff must then be given a reasonable opportunity to amend the pleadings to cure the jurisdictional defects. As a result, the case was remanded.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justices Chapa, Rios, and Rodriguez. Memorandum opinion by Justice Rodriguez.

Property owners around lake drained by GBRA had no standing to sue as they possessed no particularized injury

Quote

Jimmy and Cheryl Williams, et al. v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority and its Officers and Directors, 04-20-00445-CV, (Tex. App. – San Antonio, July 7, 2021)

This is a takings case where the San Antonio Court of Appeals partially reversed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment on Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority’s (“GBRA”) plea to the jurisdiction in takings suit. The trial court granted GBRA’s plea to all claims except the property owners’ takings claims after GBRA drained lakes around their properties.

Six hydroelectric dams (“Hydro Dams”) were privately constructed between 1928 and 1932 and put in service in the Guadalupe River Valley in Comal, Guadalupe, and Gonzales Counties. Construction of the hydro dams resulted in the formation of six lakes: Meadow, Placid, McQueeney, Dunlap, Wood, and Gonzales. In 1963, GBRA acquired the six hydro dams. Spill gates at two of the hydro dams failed draining both Lake Wood and Lake Dunlap. As a result of the deterioration of the hydro dams and respective spill gates, GBRA announced its intent to perform a “systematic drawdown” of the remaining four lakes, beginning at Lake Gonzales and then moving upstream to Meadow Lake, Lake Placid, and Lake McQueeney. Appellants—owners of properties adjacent to the lakes—sued GBRA (and its officers in their official capacities) for injunctive relief to prevent the announced drawdown, declaratory relief, and damages based on diminished property values.

GBRA asserted that the property owners lacked standing because they could not demonstrate a particularized injury.  Standing requires a plaintiff to establish: (1) the plaintiff’s claimed injury is “both concrete and particularized and actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical”; (2) the injury is “fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged action”; and (3) “it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the plea as to the taking claims, finding that the property owners could not demonstrate a particularized injury apart from the community at large absent ownership of a property right in the hydro dams, the lands underneath the lakes, or the water itself. As a result, the Court of Appeals dismissed the sole remaining claim against GBRA.

Panel consists of Justices Alvarez, Chapa, and Valenzuela. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Valenzuela can be read here. Docket page with attorney information found here.