Doan v. Transcanada Keystone Pipeline, LP
542 S.W.3d 794
Tex. App.2018Background
- TransCanada obtained a license from the Port of Houston Authority (Port Authority) to build a pipeline under Muleshoe Lake, which lies on land claimed by Doan, and constructed the pipeline without offering Doan compensation for that submerged land.
- TransCanada separately condemned and settled for an easement across the lake's dry banks for $100,000 in Harris County Court at Law No. 4; the submerged‑land ownership remained disputed.
- Doan sued in Harris County district court asserting (a) an inverse‑condemnation (takings) claim against the Port Authority, (b) trespass‑to‑try‑title against two Port employees, and (c) trespass against TransCanada; TransCanada counterclaimed to condemn an easement across the submerged land.
- Port Authority filed an answer disclaiming it would litigate ownership of the submerged land and moved for take‑nothing relief; the district court granted relief (without specifying grounds).
- TransCanada made a bona fide offer of $139 for the easement; the district court found Doan the sole owner, allowed condemnation, and awarded $139; Doan appealed jurisdictional and preservation issues; TransCanada conditionally cross‑appealed ownership rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Doan) | Defendant's Argument (TransCanada / Port) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harris County district court had jurisdiction over TransCanada's condemnation counterclaim | Section 25.1032(c) gives Harris County civil courts at law exclusive jurisdiction over statutory eminent‑domain proceedings where the condemnor's bona fide offer ≤ $200,000; district court rulings are void | District court may hear condemnation counterclaims under Property Code §§ 21.003 / 21.017 (ancillary jurisdiction and cross‑bill authority) | Held: County courts at law have exclusive jurisdiction for bona fide offers ≤ $200,000; district court lacked jurisdiction over the condemnation claim (vacated as void) |
| Whether §25.1032(c) applies to counterclaims/cross‑bills or only “traditional” initiatory condemnation proceedings | §25.1032(c) is not limited by pleading form; exclusivity covers condemnation regardless of whether claim is a counterclaim | §21.017 permits condemnation by petition, cross‑bill, or intervention in district court where ancillary jurisdiction exists | Held: §21.017 presupposes district court ancillary jurisdiction under §21.003; Taub controls and §25.1032(c) prevails — no exception for counterclaims |
| Whether the district court erred in refusing to abate until TransCanada made a bona fide offer > $200,000 | Trial court should have abated until TransCanada made an offer large enough to place the claim outside county courts at law jurisdiction | TransCanada had made a bona fide offer ($139) after the motion; abatement motion was not timely presented | Held: Issue not preserved — motion to abate was not ruled on and Doan did not object to refusal to rule; alternative argument (waiting for >$200,000 offer) was not the relief originally sought |
| Whether Port Authority effectively disclaimed ownership and whether Doan was sole owner | Doan argued Port Authority did not own the submerged land; Port Authority's pleading disclaimed interest; Doan established ownership at trial | TransCanada argued the disclaimer and ownership finding were improperly based solely on Port’s pleading | Held: Ruling that Port disclaimed interest is void for lack of jurisdiction (takings claims are within county courts at law); but district court's factual finding that Doan is sole owner is affirmed (appellant failed to bring complete reporter's record; presumption the evidence supports the finding) |
Key Cases Cited
- Taub v. Aquila Southwest Pipeline Corp., 93 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (local statute granting exclusive jurisdiction to county courts at law controls over district court ancillary jurisdiction for condemnation claims)
- Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control, Inc. v. City of San Antonio, 489 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. 2016) (subject‑matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo)
- TIC Energy & Chem., Inc. v. Martin, 498 S.W.3d 68 (Tex. 2016) (statutory construction principles and legislative intent controls)
- Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. 1990) (rulings made by a court lacking subject‑matter jurisdiction are void)
- Bennett v. Cochran, 96 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2002) (failure to provide a complete reporter’s record leads to presumption that omitted evidence supports the judgment)