City of Floresville, Texas, City of Floresville City Council, City of Floresville City Planning and Zoning Committee, and the Wilson County Appraisal District v. Starnes Investment Group, LLC
502 S.W.3d 859
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- In 2010–2013 the City of Floresville updated its municipal limits map; mapping produced conflicting statements about whether Starnes’s property lay inside the city.
- Starnes purchased property for an RV park, filed a zoning application March 29, 2012, and claims the City’s earlier statements that the land was outside city limits delayed approval and utility hookups until September 12, 2013.
- Starnes sued the City, City Council, Planning & Zoning Committee, and Wilson County Appraisal District alleging inverse condemnation (takings), due process and equal protection violations, violation of the Texas Vested Property Rights Act (Ch. 245), and other claims; it sought damages.
- Appellants filed a plea to the jurisdiction and special exceptions; the trial court allowed amendment and later denied the plea to the jurisdiction as to the amended petition.
- On accelerated appeal the court considered whether Starnes’s amended petition alleged waiver of governmental immunity for its asserted claims and whether dismissal was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended petition alleges a takings/inverse-condemnation claim waiving sovereign immunity | Starnes: City’s delay and incorrect mapping statements intentionally deprived use of property (economic loss Mar 2012–Sept 2013) | Appellants: Allegations show mistake or negligence, not the knowledge/substantial-certainty required for an intentional taking | Reversed trial court; petition fails to plead the requisite intent/knowledge — immunity not waived; takings claim dismissed |
| Whether due-process/due-course claim alleges deprivation of a protected property interest | Starnes: City conduct deprived its interests and business expectations | Appellants: Zoning application sought a governmental benefit only; mere expectation is not a protected property interest | Petition alleges only an expectation of a permit (no protected property right); immunity not waived; claim dismissed |
| Whether equal-protection claim is sufficiently pleaded | Starnes: Treated differently from similarly situated properties allowed similar uses | Appellants: No factual allegations comparing similarly situated parties or showing arbitrary treatment | Conclusory allegations insufficient; immunity not waived; equal-protection claim dismissed |
| Whether Texas Vested Property Rights Act (Ch. 245) claim supports jurisdiction | Starnes: Chapter 245 rights were violated by delay/misstatements (seeking damages) | Appellants: No allegation that regulations changed after filing or that Starnes sought proper declaratory/mandamus relief; Ch. 245 does not authorize damages relief alone | Chapter 245 not implicated; statutory relief limited to mandamus/declaratory/injunctive relief; claim fails and immunity remains; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (sovereign immunity is jurisdictional and appellate courts may consider immunity arguments raised on interlocutory appeal)
- Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for plea to the jurisdiction and when pleader may amend)
- Gen. Servs. Comm’n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. 2001) (elements for inverse condemnation and waiver of immunity)
- City of Dallas v. Jennings, 142 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2004) (intent/knowledge required for takings; accidental result or mere negligence insufficient)
- Tarrant Reg’l Water Dist. v. Gragg, 151 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2004) (requisite intent when government knows harm is substantially certain)
- Sheffield Dev. Co. v. City of Glenn Heights, 140 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2004) (delay alone does not necessarily constitute a temporary taking)
- City of Tyler v. Likes, 962 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1997) (governmental negligence does not constitute a taking)
- Harris Cty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) (if plaintiff had opportunity to amend and still fails to plead waiver, dismissal should be with prejudice)