Amaro v. Wilson County
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 9771
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Amaro et al. appeal a take-nothing judgment in favor of Wilson County and Rick’s Towing on an incident management tow contract.
- Wilson County awarded Rick’s Towing a two-year exclusive contract to perform the county’s incident management tows (May 1, 2010–April 30, 2012).
- The dispute centers on the Texas Towing and Booting Act’s nonconsent tow framework, including incident management tows, and whether the county can contract for exclusive services.
- The contract states Rick’s Towing has exclusive towing rights to all calls originated by a Wilson County Sheriff’s Office peace officer for nonconsent tows within a defined service area.
- Amaro argued the contract is ultra vires and impermissibly exclusive, and the fees structure improperly assigns payment to noncontracting vehicle owners; the trial court concluded the county had authority and ruled for Rick’s Towing on UDJA fees.
- On appeal, the standard is de novo on agreed stipulations; the trial record included stipulated facts and the trial court’s ruling denying relief to Amaro.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the contract authorized by the county? | Amaro: county lacks home-rule authority to grant exclusivity. | County: limited-jurisdiction entity may contract to improve road safety and efficiency. | Yes; county authority to contract allows this arrangement. |
| Is the contract an impermissible exclusive franchise? | Contract blocks noncontractors and fixes fees to Rick’s Towing. | Contract not a monopoly; motorists/officers can still request other providers; limited service area and categories. | Not impermissibly exclusive. |
| Does the contract violate § 2308.202 by failing to regulate private-property tow rates? | County must regulate private-property tow fees under § 2308.202. | Contract is a procurement agreement, not a regulation; § 2308.202 not violated. | No violation; contract is not a rate regulation. |
| Was the award of attorney’s fees under the UDJA proper? | Fees were improperly sought or awarded if ultra vires. | Rick’s Towing properly sought fees as prevailing party; award not unjust. | Fees awarded; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2003) (commissioners court powers limited; municipalities may contract within statutory duties)
- Cardinal Towing & Auto Repair, Inc. v. City of Bedford, 180 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 1999) (contract decision not necessarily a regulation; market-participant rationale)
- City of Crosbyton v. Texas-New Mexico Utilities Co., 157 S.W.2d 418 (Tex. Civ. App. Amarillo 1941) (exclusive-contract questions; not monopolistic if limited to specific purposes)
- Oake v. Collin County, 692 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1985) (UDJA attorney’s fees discretion; standards for abuse of discretion)