James B. Bonham Corp. v. the City of Corsicana, 528 S.W.3d 554

The City of Corsicana condemned land owned by James B. Bonham Corp. to build a raw water line; special commissioners awarded $2,900 and the City deposited that amount in court.
The Corporation timely filed objections to the special commissioners’ award in 2008 but did not cause citation to issue or properly serve the City; its certificate of service showed only delivery to the City’s attorney.
Limited discovery occurred through April 30, 2009; no further activity until the City moved for dismissal for want of prosecution in December 2015 and for summary judgment in March 2016.
The Corporation caused citation to issue in January 2016 (service returns in late January 2016) and filed another objection, but the trial court found the City was first served in 2016 and dismissed the 2008 objections for want of prosecution, reinstating the commissioners’ award.
The Corporation appealed, arguing (1) its 2008 objections were timely and effectively served by delivering a copy to the City’s attorney and (2) the City was estopped from asserting lack of service because it participated in discovery through 2009.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing for want of prosecution and that the Corporation failed to preserve its estoppel argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether service on the City in 2008 was proper	Bonham: timely objections were delivered to the City’s attorney, so service satisfied the statute	City: service on an incorporated city must be on mayor/clerk/secretary/treasurer; delivery to attorney is not proper	Held: Service on the attorney was not proper; citation was not issued/served until 2016 absent waiver
Whether dismissal for want of prosecution was abuse of discretion	Bonham: objections were timely filed and later served; dismissal was improper	City: over seven-year unexplained delay in securing service and almost no case activity justified dismissal	Held: No abuse of discretion; delay, minimal activity, no trial setting or excuse supported dismissal
Whether Beck exception (jurisdiction satisfied by mutual objections) applies	Bonham: Beck supports that formal citation requirement was satisfied because parties litigated	City: City never invoked the judicial process by filing its own objections; Beck’s exception is inapplicable	Held: Beck exception not applicable here because City did not file objections; formal service required
Whether City is estopped from asserting lack of service	Bonham: City’s participation in discovery and silence amounted to waiver/estoppel	City: never waived service; no trial-court challenge to estoppel below	Held: Estoppel argument not preserved on appeal (not raised sufficiently in trial court)

Denton County v. Brammer, 361 S.W.2d 198 (Tex. 1962) (condemnee must obtain service; long unexplained delay may be deemed abandonment of objections)
Amason v. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co., 682 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1984) (upon objections the administrative condemnation converts to a judicial proceeding and condemnee must secure service)
City of Tyler v. Beck, 196 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. 2006) (service requirement is the objecting party’s duty but exception where purposes of citation are satisfied)
Skaggs v. City of Keller, 880 S.W.2d 264 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994) (service on a city’s attorney does not constitute proper service on an incorporated city)
Dueitt v. Arrowhead Lakes Prop. Owners, Inc., 180 S.W.3d 733 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005) (standard of review for dismissal for want of prosecution is abuse of discretion)
Nichols v. Sedalco Constr. Servs., 228 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007) (affirm where trial court’s dismissal may be upheld on any legal theory supported by the record)