01-11-00947-CV
Tex. App.Jul 26, 2012Background
- ADAEs chartered open-enrollment school is governed by the ADAE board; Salley contends the Salley board is the valid governing body, consisting of family members; governance forms with the State Board of Education list different directors over years; Salley signed several governance forms as CEO; the Education Code and Administrative Code prohibit nepotism affecting quorum; the trial court granted summary judgment in ADAE’s favor, then reconsidered, leading to a modified judgment removing Salley and related members from the board but preserving injunctive relief; on appeal, Salley challenges only the declaratory judgment portion, not the injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Education Code nepotism governs board quorum | Salley argues TNPCA governs board status | ADAE argues Education Code governs and restricts nepotism | Education Code applies; Salley prohibited from acting as quorum |
| Whether exception to nepotism (rating-based) overrides nepotism prohibition | Section 100.1111(b) exempts exemplary performance | Subsection (f) overrides subsection (b) | Subsection (f) applies notwithstanding (b) |
| Authority to remove Salley and relatives from ADAE board | Trial court lacked authority under Administrative Code | Court could remove due to nepotism violation | Judgment upheld; removal of Salley-related members affirmed as to prohibition; declaration modified to delete superfluous removal language |
| Whether quasi-estoppel forecloses Salley’s declaratory-judgment claim | Quasi-estoppel should bar Salley | ABA has burden to prove quasi-estoppel | Court need not reach quasi-estoppel; injunction already bars Salley’s board participation; quasi-estoppel unnecessary |
| Standard of review for summary judgment and governing law | Traditional summary judgment standard applies; Education Code governs | No-evidence grounds support | De novo review; Education Code governs and supports summary judgments |
| Whether the declaration removing Salley’s board is necessary given injunctive relief | Declaration unnecessary | Declaration necessary to fully adjudicate governance | Declaration removed as superfluous; affirm injunction as challenged; as modified, judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- LTTS Charter Sch., Inc. v. C2 Constr., Inc., 342 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. 2011) (open-enrollment charters governed by Education Code provisions)
- Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. 2009) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
- Britton v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—Houston 2002) (no-petition dismissal; injunctive relief considerations/or standards)
- Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P., 22 S.W.3d 857 (Tex. 2000) (quasi-estoppel applicable when positions are inconsistent)
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cnty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (summary judgment burden and standards)