Faye Comte and Laura Severt v. Smith County Commissioners Court and Joel P. Baker, Cary Nix, Jeff Warr, Joann Hampton, and Terry Phillips, Each in His or Her Official Capacity as a Smith County Commissioner
06-14-00086-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 3, 2015Background
- In June 2013 the Smith County Commissioners Court adopted a budget policy limiting post‑July 18, 2013 payments for non‑contract (hourly) ad‑litem attorneys in family cases in the 321st District Court after that court had significantly overspent its 2013 budget.
- Appellants (Comte and Severt), two non‑contract ad‑litems who represented children/indigent parents in DFPS termination suits, submitted invoices after the July 18 deadline and sought payment from the county for 2013 services.
- Appellants filed a petition for writ of mandamus (Sept. 16, 2013) asking the commissioners to pay the invoices; commissioners responded with a plea to the jurisdiction asserting mootness and immunity defenses.
- A visiting judge denied the petition for writ of mandamus (Final Order Aug. 25, 2014). Appellants appealed; appellees argue the appeal should be denied because (1) relief would require reopening an expired 2013 budget (not permitted), (2) mandamus is inappropriate, and (3) claims are barred by legislative and governmental immunity.
- Appellees emphasize timing: commissioners gave a one‑month window to submit invoices (deadline July 18), but appellants submitted invoices in late August/September and first asserted statutory entitlement only when they filed the mandamus petition. Appellees rely on constitutional and statutory limits on amending expired budgets and on precedent limiting mandamus and suits for retrospective monetary relief against counties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness — may county be ordered to pay 2013 fees after fiscal year ended? | Appellants seek payment for fees owed under Tex. Fam. Code §107.015; commissioners must pay. | Appellees: relief would require amending an expired 2013 budget, which Texas Constitution, Local Government Code, and AG opinion prohibit; claim therefore moot. | Trial court denied mandamus; appellees argue affirmance because relief would require reopening an expired budget (not permitted). |
| Availability of mandamus (ministerial vs. discretionary act) | Appellants claim commissioners had a ministerial duty to pay under the Family Code/statute. | Appellees: budget allocation is a discretionary/policymaking act of the commissioners court, not ministerial; mandamus is inappropriate. | Appellees contend mandamus improper; trial court denied petition. |
| Adequate remedy at law | Appellants assert no adequate remedy (pointing to Smith v. Flack precedent). | Appellees: appellants had an adequate remedy at law (suit in district court); Smith is factually distinguishable and limited. | Appellees: mandamus is extraordinary and appellants have alternative remedies. |
| Immunity (legislative and governmental) | Appellants argue statutory "shall" obligations and ministerial duties override immunity. | Appellees: commissioners are absolutely immune for legislative budget acts; governmental immunity bars retrospective monetary relief—mandamus seeking past payments is barred. | Appellees rely on Williams/Heinrich line to show claims seeking retrospective monetary relief are barred; trial court denied mandamus. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Terrell v. Dissaint, 9 S.W. 593 (Tex. 1888) (constitutional prohibition against incurring municipal debts without provisions to pay at the time they are created)
- Texas & New Orleans R.R. Co. v. Galveston County, 169 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1943) (debt incurred during fiscal year must be provided for at time incurred)
- In re Perry, 60 S.W.3d 857 (Tex. 2001) (legislative functions of commissioners court and limits on mandamus)
- Smith v. Flack, 728 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (mandamus and adequacy of remedy analysis in criminal‑defense payment context)
- City of Houston v. Williams, 216 S.W.3d 827 (Tex. 2007) (focus on remedy—claims that in substance seek retrospective monetary relief are barred by governmental immunity)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (prospective injunctive relief may be allowed against governmental actors; retrospective monetary relief is barred)
- Kaufman County v. Combs, 393 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (mandamus and declaratory/mandamus requests for payment under mandatory‑language statutes constitute barred retrospective monetary claims)