Manning v. Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P.
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5336
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- condemnation action to condemn a 50-foot easement across 183-acre Manning property; agreed just compensation of $32,005 but other issues contested
- Manning sued in his capacities as Independent Executor and co-trustee; writ of possession issued for entire property
- Enbridge sought to condemn; Manning challenged capacity and representation; trial court denied plea to jurisdiction
- Proceedings consolidated: issues included notice, capacity to sue, and damages; some claims dismissed; title and declaratory relief pursued
- Trial court entered judgment: title in Manning; $32,005 for easement; other claims resolved against Manning on directed verdict; declaratory judgment and attorney fees awarded
- On appeal, court affirmed trial court’s judgment; several issues about corporate status, notice, fees, and sanctions addressed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to transact business affects condemnation authority | Manning argues Enbridge lacked capacity due to forfeiture | Enbridge restored capacity; forfeiture mootitas | Issue overruled; capacity revived; moot question |
| Notice and capacity of representative in condemnation | Notice to Manning individually violated §21.016(d)(2) | Notice to Manning; representative capacity cured later | Issues 3 and 4 overruled; jurisdiction sustained |
| Attorney fees and recovery in declaratory judgment | Entitled to statutory/contractual fees; FKM framework applies | Fees limited; no full abandonment; segregation issues | Trial court’s fee award within discretion; affirmed |
| Sanctions for frivolous filings | Sanctions appropriate for groundless pleadings | Trial court acted within discretion; no abuse | Sanctions ruling affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., 141 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. 2004) (noncompliance may be cured in condemnation proceedings)
- FKM Partnership, Ltd. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Houston Sys., 255 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2008) (amended petition may function as dismissal for §21.019 purposes)
- Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equipment Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997) (Arthur Andersen factors govern reasonableness of fees)
- Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2008) (trial courts have broad discretion on fees in declaratory actions)
- Roberson v. City of Austin, 157 S.W.3d 130 (Tex. App.-Austin 2005) (fee title determinations in easement-related actions via declaratory judgment)