Bobby Trant, Individually and as of the Estate of Harold B. Trant, and of the Estate of Rosealice Trant, and the Additional Heirs and Beneficiaries of Those Estates, Patsy Trant Langford and Robin Trant Johnson v. Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency, Inc., D/B/A BVSWMA, Inc.
14-14-00507-CV
| Tex. Crim. App. | Sep 29, 2015Background
- Harold and Rosealice Trant sold ~382 acres to the Cities of Bryan and College Station via an Option Contract and General Warranty Deed; the Option Contract said the Cities “contemplate using the Property as a ... Landfill.”
- The General Warranty Deed incorporated the Option Contract terms; the Cities also granted the Trants a non-exclusive access Easement Agreement to reach adjacent property.
- The Cities formed Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency (the Agency), which operates a landfill on the property; the Agency planned a firing range on part of the tract near the Trants’ land.
- The Trants sued the Agency (not the Cities) alleging breach of contract and fraudulent inducement, seeking damages and an injunction to prevent the firing range.
- The Agency filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity; the trial court granted the plea and dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
- On appeal, the Trants argued (inter alia) that the contract created enforceable use restrictions or a condemnation-settlement equivalent (so immunity did not bar suit), and that immunity was waived under Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code ch. 271.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the deed/option created a restrictive covenant limiting use to a landfill | Trant: Option/Deed and Easement impose a use restriction; Agency may not use site for a firing range | Agency: Contract only stated an anticipated use; no restrictive covenant or reversionary interest exists | Held: No restrictive covenant or reversionary interest shown; pleadings do not raise a fact issue |
| Whether alleged future use constitutes a compensable unconstitutional taking | Trant: Using property/firing range contrary to deal is an unlawful taking, waiving immunity | Agency: No compensable taking alleged because no covenant or present interference; immunity bars suit | Held: No valid takings claim pleaded; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the Option Contract is a condemnation-settlement agreement that defeats immunity | Trant: Sale settled a condemnation threat; Agency cannot claim immunity to avoid enforcement | Agency: Contract was a voluntary sale conveying fee simple; not a condemnation settlement | Held: Court need not decide settlement status because plaintiffs did not show breach or compensable taking |
| Whether immunity waived under Tex. Local Gov’t Code ch. 271 | Trant: Option required services or created a contract for goods/services; chapter 271 waives immunity | Agency: Chapter 271 waiver covers certain breach-of-contract claims for sums due; Trants seek injunction/consequential/exemplary damages outside waiver | Held: Chapter 271 does not waive immunity for the Trants’ claimed damages and relief; no jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Lubbock Cnty. Water Control & Improvement Dist. v. Church & Akin, L.L.C., 442 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. 2014) (local governmental entities retain governmental immunity; contract waives liability but not immunity from suit)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for pleading and reviewing jurisdictional challenges)
- El Dorado Land Co. v. City of McKinney, 395 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. 2013) (reversionary interest can support inverse condemnation where use restriction creates a defeasible estate)
- City of Carrollton v. Singer, 232 S.W.3d 790 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (governmental entity not immune from breach-of-settlement claims that would otherwise enforce a takings-type obligation)
- Tex. A & M Univ.-Kingsville v. Lawson, 87 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. 2002) (a governmental entity cannot nullify a waiver of immunity by settling a claim in a way that would immunize suit)
- Kaufman Cnty. v. Combs, 393 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (governmental immunity does not protect an entity from valid takings claims, but immunity applies when a valid taking is not pleaded)