City of North Richland Hills v. Home Town Urban Partners, Ltd.
340 S.W.3d 900
Tex. App.2011Background
- The City of North Richland Hills entered into a Development Agreement with Arcadia for development of the Home Town Development, including public and private improvements and a recreation center site.
- A 1999 regulating plan, preliminary plat, and a TIF district were created to govern zoning and financing; the library site was built, but the recreation center was relocated outside the Development.
- In 2004, the City amended the Development, regulating plan, and plat; Arcadia and Urban Partners allege the recreation center relocation breached the Development Agreement and related plans.
- In 2007 the City amended zoning to require a SUP for multi-family use, which Urban Partners allegedly acted upon and pursued, while not being notified of the amendment.
- Urban Partners and Arcadia filed separate suits challenging the zoning amendment, the SUP process, and seeking declaratory relief, damages, and specific performance; City filed pleas to the jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Development Agreement fall within 271.152 waiver for goods/services? | Urban Partners/Arcadia: provides services under the Agreement; waives immunity. | City: Agreement is for conveyance of land, not goods/services; immunity not waived. | Waiver found; Agreement provides services and triggers 271.152. |
| Are damages under 271.153 limitations jurisdictional for breach claims? | Appellees seek damages (including some parking) beyond mere balance due; damages pleaded to invoke jurisdiction. | Damages limited to balance due; consequential damages barred. | Damages issue not resolved on jurisdictional pleadings; court leaves merits for later proceedings. |
| Can Appellees obtain declaratory relief regarding recreation center relocation and SUP denial? | Declarations sought to enforce Development/Regulating Plan; not claims for damages. | Declarations recast breach/ultra vires issues; immunity may bar some declarations. | Some declaratory requests are barred; others allowed; portions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Does Urban Partners have standing to challenge zoning amendment for lack of notice? | Notice failure impacts zoning; Urban Partners has standing to challenge void zoning. | Procedural irregularity should be challenged by State in quo warranto; no private standing. | Urban Partners has standing; lack of notice renders zoning void; standing recognized. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirby Lake Development, Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Authority, 320 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2010) (waiver under 271.152 when developers provide services to authority)
- Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tex. Political Subdiv. Prop./Cas. Joint Self-Ins. Fund, 212 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. 2006) (immunity from suit waived where members provide services to fund)
- Friendswood Development Co. v. City of Friendswood, 256 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (contractual services can fall within 271.152 waiver)
- City of Mesquite v. PKG Contracting, Inc., 263 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008) (damages limitations do not deprive trial court of jurisdiction)
- IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (plea to jurisdiction; liberally construe pleadings; resolve jurisdictional facts)
- NuRock Dev. Partners, Ltd. v. City of Fort Worth, 293 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2009) (no attorney's fees under DJA for certain declaratory claims when immunity not waived)
- Bolton v. Sparks, 362 S.W.2d 946 (Tex. 1962) (notice and hearing requirements for zoning void an ordinance)
- Laidlaw Waste Systems (Dallas), Inc. v. City of Wilmer, 904 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1995) (standing to challenge annexations on procedural grounds)
- Alexander Oil Co. v. City of Seguin, 825 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1991) (quo warranto for voidable vs void acts; annexation context relevant to zoning challenges)