City of Pearsall v. Robert Tobias
04-15-00302-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 13, 2015Background
- Tobias (city manager) signed a written employment contract with the City of Pearsall in April 2013; the contract provided that if he was involuntarily terminated while willing and able to perform, he was to receive a cash payment equal to one year’s salary or the remaining term, plus accrued leave.
- Pearsall terminated Tobias in mid-September 2013 and refused to pay the contract termination amount; Tobias sued asserting breach of contract and sought declaratory relief.
- Pearsall asserted defenses including that a residency provision of the contract was ultra vires (void) and invoked governmental sovereign immunity.
- The trial court denied Pearsall’s immunity and ultra vires defenses, granted Tobias’s declaratory judgment interpreting the contract to require payment of the balance due (plus fees and interest under statute), and awarded attorney’s fees; subsequent proceedings included nonsuit of individual defendants and a determination that Pearsall’s plea to the jurisdiction was moot.
- Tobias’s appeal response argues the judgment was proper under Texas Local Government Code §§ 271.152–.153 (waiver of immunity for breach-of-contract adjudication and limited recovery), and under the Declaratory Judgment Act for fees (Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 37.009).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tobias) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held (trial-court ruling affirmed by appellee) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether governmental immunity was waived for this declaratory-judgment action tied to a breach-of-contract claim | §271.152 waives immunity for adjudicating breach-of-contract claims; the declaratory judgment mirrored the breach claim so immunity is waived | Declaratory-judgment claims cannot be used to circumvent sovereign immunity; immunity was not waived for declaratory relief | Trial court concluded immunity was waived under §271.152 for this breach/declaratory claim; appellee asks affirmance |
| Whether the court improperly awarded money damages exceeding statutory limits | The court awarded only the contract balance, accrued leave, attorney’s fees, and interest—items authorized by §271.153 and §37.009 | The award was effectively money damages beyond permissible declaratory relief and thus barred by immunity | Trial court limited relief to items authorized by statute (balance due, fees, interest); appellee defends that award as lawful |
| Whether the residency clause was ultra vires and voided the entire contract | Residency clause could be severed under the contract’s severability clause; the remainder of the contract (including termination pay) is enforceable | The residency provision is ultra vires, rendering the whole contract void | Trial court rejected ultra vires defense and enforced the contract provision for termination pay |
| Whether the plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss were moot after nonsuit and declaratory judgment | After nonsuit of individual defendants and the December declaratory judgment, plea to jurisdiction was mooted and breach claim remained adjudicable | Plea to jurisdiction challenged subject-matter jurisdiction and immunity | Trial court deemed the plea to jurisdiction moot following nonsuit and prior orders; appellee asks affirmation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tex. Pol. Subdivisions Prop./Cas. Joint Self-Ins. Fund, 212 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. 2006) (statutory waiver of immunity may permit suit to adjudicate contract claims including related declaratory relief)
- Lower Colo. River Auth. v. City of Boerne, 422 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, pet. dism'd) (construction of §271.152 and limits on waiver for declaratory relief)
- Nat’l Pub. Fin. Guarantee Corp. v. Harris Cnty.-Houston Sports Auth., 448 S.W.3d 472 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (discussing §271 waiver and mirror-image declaratory/breach claims)
- Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. 2002) (pre-2005 precedent on immunity that the appellee contends was superseded by the 2005 enactment of chapter 271)
- Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (principles on recoverable remedies against municipalities and limits on relief)