Bill Eris v. Ilias Giannakopoulos, 369 S.W.3d 618

Eris and Giannakopoulos own 50% of H.G.B.E., Inc., whose only assets are three adjacent properties; the properties are held in a single company ownership structure.
All three properties were purchased in 1997 for $275,000, with recent offers ranging from $700,000 to $950,000.
Giannakopoulos sued for partition of the property and to recover his expenses paying Eris’s share of property taxes and insurance.
Giannakopoulos later added a breach of fiduciary duty claim and sought dissolution of H.G.B.E.
The trial court partitioned the properties into two equal lots, awarding one lot to each owner, and later severed the partition claim from other claims, rendering the partition order a final judgment.
Eris appealed, arguing lack of jurisdiction and other procedural and substantive issues; the court ultimately found lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether county court at law has jurisdiction over partition actions concurrent with district courts.	Eris argues district courts have exclusive partition jurisdiction.	Giannakopoulos argues concurrent jurisdiction exists within a monetary range.	County court at law has concurrent jurisdiction within the statutory range.
Whether the amount in controversy exceeded the trial court’s jurisdiction, depriving it of authority to decide partition.	Eris asserts the property value places the action outside the court’s limit.	Giannakopoulos contends the case seeks only equitable partition and related recoveries within jurisdiction.	The amount in controversy exceeded the trial court’s limit; lack of jurisdiction barred the partition.

Continental Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1996) (concurrent jurisdiction principle for statutory county courts)
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Auth. v. Four Seasons Equip., Inc., 321 S.W.3d 168 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (concurrent jurisdiction within amount-in-controversy range)
Tune v. Tex. Dept. of Pub. Safety, 23 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. 2000) (amount-in-controversy defined as value of property interest)
AIC Mgmt. v. Crews, 246 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2008) (eminent domain exception to general jurisdiction limits)
Medina v. Benkiser, 262 S.W.3d 25 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (equitable relief requires statutory grant and jurisdictional basis)
Red Deer Oil Dev. Co. v. Huggins, 155 S.W.949 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1913) (recognizes approach to determining amount in controversy in liens/real property context)
Peek v. Equip. Serv. Co. of San Antonio, 779 S.W.2d 802 (Tex. 1989) (jurisdictional amount may be proven at trial if pleadings fail to state it)
Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2006) (county courts’ jurisdictional limits and lack of general jurisdiction)