Johnny Partain v. State of Texas, 15-25-00005-CV

Johnny Partain filed a financing statement with the Texas Secretary of State alleging a $250 million security interest in all Texas state property, claiming the State owed him compensation for an alleged inverse condemnation.
Partain's earlier inverse condemnation claim against the State had been dismissed with prejudice by a Hidalgo County court, and no court had declared a taking by the State.
After the dismissal, Partain pursued the State for compensation via letters and administrative filings, ultimately claiming an increasing debt owed to him and threatening enforcement against public assets and private parties (notably oil and gas lessees).
The Texas Attorney General determined Partain's financing statement was fraudulent, sent a cease and desist letter, and, after noncompliance, filed suit under Texas Business & Commerce Code § 9.5185 for declaratory, injunctive, and other relief.
The trial court granted the State's requested relief: declared the filing fraudulent and void, ordered its release, and permanently enjoined Partain from similar filings/enforcement actions.
Partain appealed, arguing constitutional rights to compensation and procedural errors, including lack of a jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Financing Statement	Partain asserts State owed him for a taking, so he could secure debt against the State’s property.	State argues no taking was found, thus no valid interest or debt existed; the filing was knowingly false.	Financing Statement was fraudulent, void, and unenforceable.
Due Process / Jury Rights	Alleged denial of due process and jury trial.	State notes Partain agreed to bench hearing, no fact issues required a jury, and all procedural rights were observed.	No due process violation; no right to jury as no fact issue existed.
Statutory Authority/Standing	Claimed State lacked standing and statutory authority under § 9.5185.	State claims direct injury and redressability under statute as property owner.	State had standing and statutory authority.
Constitutionality of Relief	Claimed Texas Constitution prevents enforcement of § 9.5185 against him if he seeks compensation.	State: fraud prevention statutes are valid, even if a taking occurred.	Texas Constitution does not shield fraudulent filings; statute is enforceable.

Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (standing analysis for injury, traceability, and redressability of government suits)
Harris Cnty. Flood Control Dist. v. Kerr, 499 S.W.3d 793 (Tex. 2016) (just compensation requires a judicial finding of a taking)
Tex. Outfitters Ltd., LLC v. Nicholson, 572 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. 2019) (review standards for granting declaratory and injunctive relief)
Leibovitz v. Sequoia Real Estate Holdings, L.P., 465 S.W.3d 331 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015) (elements for permanent injunctive relief)
Mickens v. Longhorn DFW Moving Inc., 264 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (no jury right absent genuine issues of material fact)
Mosely v. Tex. Health and Hum. Serv. Comm'n, 593 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. 2019) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)