City of Paris and Kevin Carruth v. Ranger Abbott
360 S.W.3d 567
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Abbott bought a 7.77-acre tract in Paris, TX, intending to expand a mobile home park based on a City Manager Carruth letter.
- Carruth’s May 8, 2008 letter stated the property’s non-conforming mobile home use would transfer to Abbott upon purchase, and allowed related mobile/travel trailer use.
- Abbott submitted a preliminary plat; the Planning and Zoning Department advised rezoning to Single Family Dwelling No. 3 to permit additional manufactured homes.
- Abbott’s requests to appear before the City Council were denied; a building permit was later denied after additional correspondence.
- Abbott sued City of Paris and Carruth for breach of contract, takings, due process, equal protection, and TTA claims; the City pleaded immunity.
- Trial court granted partial immunity relief for the TTA claim but denied others; the City appealed under §51.014(8).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contract claims were within the trial court’s jurisdiction | Abbott asserts Carruth’s letter created a binding contract with the City. | City argues no contract; immunity and Chapter 271 waiver required for breach claims. | Trial court lacked jurisdiction over contract claims. |
| Whether declaratory-judgment claims were within jurisdiction | Abbott seeks declarations enforcing the letter as a contract and ongoing rights. | Declaratory relief cannot bypass immunity or allow contract enforcement without legislative consent. | Trial court lacked jurisdiction for declaratory-judgment claims. |
| Whether takings claims were ripe for adjudication | Regulatory taking claims are ripe despite no final state action. | Ripeness requires final agency action or guarded finality under Williamson/Mayhew; not present here. | State and federal takings claims not ripe. |
| Whether due process and equal protection claims were ripe and jurisdictional | Denial of permit and related actions violated due process and equal protection. | Remedies and rational basis standards require exhaustion and final decisions; not satisfied. | Due process and equal protection claims lack jurisdictional ripeness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1998) (ripeness requires final agency action; futility may apply in some cases)
- Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (finality requirement for takings claims)
- Little-Tex Insulation Co. v. City of Dallas, 39 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. 2001) (waiver of governmental immunity via Chapter 2260; not applicable to municipalities)
- Federal Sign v. Texas Southern Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. 1997) (waiver by conduct rejected; Chapter 2260 controls breach claims against State)
- Kirby Lake Development, Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 320 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2010) (contract-waiver scope under Chapter 271; services/goods test)
- IT-Davy v. City of San Antonio, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (declaratory judgments do not waive sovereign immunity when enforcing contracts)