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 23, 2015Background
- Appellants are court‑appointed ad litem attorneys who obtained district‑court orders directing Smith County to pay their fees from the county general fund; the county auditor approved the claims but the Commissioners Court refused payment.
- Appellants sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Smith County Commissioners Court to pay the approved, fixed claims. This document is the appellants’ reply brief arguing mandamus is proper.
- County contends payment is barred because the fees exceed the expired 2013 budget, that budget amendments are impermissible, and that constitutional, statutory, and immunity defenses preclude compelled payment.
- Appellants argue (1) inability to amend an expired budget does not extinguish obligations, (2) statutes require auditor approval and commissioners to settle and direct payment of valid claims, and (3) mandamus is the proper remedy because no adequate legal remedy exists.
- Appellants assert legislative and governmental immunity do not apply (fees arise from state‑initiated DFPS termination suits; statutes contemplate payment from county funds), and that when the State initiates suit it waives immunity related to those proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Severt/Comte) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioners Court) | Held (relief requested by appellants) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus may compel payment of district‑court‑ordered ad litem fees | Mandamus is appropriate because appellants have final, approved orders and no adequate legal remedy; commissioners must pay approved claims | Commissioners refuse payment citing budget limits and various immunity/constitutional bars | Appellants ask court to grant mandamus directing payment and reverse denial below |
| Whether an expired fiscal budget prevents payment of incurred obligations | An inability to amend an expired budget does not relieve county of obligations; AG opinion and precedent allow later payment | County says exceeding budget creates unconstitutional debt and bars payment | Appellants contend county must still pay; court should order payment despite expired budget |
| Whether legislative or governmental immunity bars mandamus/enforcement | Immunity inapplicable because action is ministerial (auditor approved, specific claims), not legislative; also statutes imply waiver | County contends immunity shields it from suit/mandamus ordering payment | Appellants argue immunity doesn't bar suit to enforce statutory payment duties and that state‑initiated suits waive immunity |
| Whether Kaufman County v. Combs controls | Severt/Comte say Combs is distinguishable: there the order did not direct county payment and auditor never approved the claim | County relies on Combs to argue claim is not enforceable against county | Appellants ask court to reject Combs as inapplicable and enforce the approved district‑court orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez, 28 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2000) (statutory waiver of immunity may be found where the statute is meaningless absent waiver)
- Kaufman County v. Combs, 393 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (guardianship/ad litem fee case; commissioners‑court payment analysis)
- Smith v. McCoy, 533 S.W.2d 457 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976) (mandamus may issue to enforce collection of fixed county claims)
- Waller County v. Freelove, 210 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1948) (county liable for services rendered despite budget technicalities)