City of Austin v. Harry M. Whittington
384 S.W.3d 766
| Tex. | 2012Background
- Texas City condemned Block 38 in Austin for a parking garage and a district cooling plant to serve the expanded convention center and hotel project.
- Block 38 owner Whittingtons leased part of the block for convention-center parking; City pursued Block 38 to support parking and District Plant 2.
- City narrowed plan from underground garage to a smaller garage on Block 38, reducing hotel project costs by $10-12 million.
- Condemnation proceedings began in 2001; City deposited $7.65 million as damages and took possession in 2002; garage opened 2005, District Plant 2 built.
- Jury found the taking not fraudulent, but the Court of Appeals upheld bad-faith findings for district plant; Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of judicial review for takings | Whittingtons argue lack of proper review for fraud/bad faith/arbitrariness | City contends review limited to legality of public use/necessity | Review is de novo for fraud/bad faith/arbitrariness; legal questions for court |
| Fraud in parking garage public use | Taking favored private party (developer) over public use | Public use served by parking for expanded center; minimal private benefit to developer | Not fraudulent public use; parking garage valid public use |
| Bad faith in parking garage necessity | City knew less-than-necessary or improper motive | City believed garage needed for proximity to north entrance; no improper motive shown | Not in bad faith; necessity determination not improper |
| Fraud/bad faith in District Plant 2 | City misrepresented necessity to serve convention center/hotel | Evidence shows future demand/backup need; not fraud/bad faith | Not fraudulent or in bad faith; plant necessary for public utility support |
| Twenty-foot strip inclusion in taking | 2001 description excluded strip; 2006 amendment improperly expanded | Amendment proper; no prejudice to Whittingtons | 2001 resolution did not include strip; 2006 amendment properly took strip without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Hous. Auth. of City of Dallas v. Higginbotham, 148 S.W.2d 79 (Tex. 1940) (public use presumptively valid unless true private use shown; necessity review limited)
- Coastal Indus. Water Auth. v. Celanese Corp. of Am., 592 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. 1979) (legislature's public-use declaration conclusive absent fraud)
- FKM P’ship, Ltd. v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Houston Sys., 255 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2008) (affirms that fraud/bad faith/arbitrariness are defenses burden on landowner; court decides as law)
- Maher v. Lasater, 354 S.W.2d 923 (Tex.1962) (ultimate question of public use judicial; necessity not submitted to jury when facts undisputed)
- Burch v. City of San Antonio, 518 S.W.2d 540 (Tex.1975) (demonstrates proper official expression of public-use/necessity; court scrutinizes condemnor decisions)