Mattox v. County Commissioners' Court
389 S.W.3d 464
Tex. App.2012Background
- Mattox and Wilkerson purchased Hill Forest Manor Lots 35-36 in Grimes County in 2005, with Hill Forest Lane as a boundary road; the plat showed Lane extending along the Jacksons’ property but not from their side.
- Mattox party believed most of Hill Forest Lane south of their property was not being maintained as a road and thought that area was part of their land; after clearing weeds they learned residents claimed the land was Hill Forest Lane (a county road).
- The Mattox Parties first sought abandonment of the relevant portion of Hill Forest Lane from the Grimes County Commissioners Court, which denied the request in July 2006 under Tex. Transp. Code § 251.051.
- In April 2007 the Mattox Parties filed an “Application to Cancel Dedication” under Tex. Local Gov’t Code § 232.008 seeking cancellation of part of the subdivision including a roadway; the Commissioners Court denied the 2007 application by a 3-2 vote.
- The Mattox Parties petitioned for a writ of mandamus in district court seeking to compel the Commissioners Court to grant the § 232.008 cancellation; the district court granted partial summary judgment to the Court Parties and denied the Mattox Parties’ motion, then ordered remand to the Commissioners Court.
- On appeal, the court reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, ultimately holding that the remand to the Commissioners Court was improper and that the Mattox Parties sought relief not provided by § 232.008; the Texas Legislature amended § 232.008(h) in 2011 to apply more broadly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remanding to the Commissioners Court was proper. | Mattox argued remand was inappropriate and beyond the scope of the mandate. | Court Parties contended remand was necessary to develop the full record. | Remand to the Commissioners Court was improper; court sustained issue to that extent. |
| Whether the Mattox Parties sought relief not provided under section 232.008. | Mattox contended § 232.008 permits cancellation of a subdivision to reconstitute as acreage and includes roadway easements. | Court Parties argued § 232.008 does not authorize cancellation of only an easement/roadway; relief sought was not conferred by the statute. | Mattox did not prove entitlement to mandamus relief; relief sought not authorized by § 232.008. |
Key Cases Cited
- Linwood v. NCNB Texas, 885 S.W.2d 102 (Tex. 1994) (summary-judgment procedure background)
- M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2000) (de novo review standard for summary judgments)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (summary-judgment standard and reasonable jurors)
- Stiles v. Resolution Trust Corp., 867 S.W.2d 24 (Tex. 1993) (affirmation of grounds for summary judgment under ground stated)
- Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138 (Tex. 1939) (mandamus burden to show clear legal right)
- In re Univ. Interscholastic League, 20 S.W.3d 690 (Tex. 2000) (mandamus context; discretionary denial standards)
- In re Stanford Group Co., 273 S.W.3d 807 (Tex. 2008) (mandamus relief; correct grounds for relief or not)
- Vondy v. Commissioners Court of Uvalde County, 620 S.W.2d 104 (Tex. 1981) (district court mandamus review limits discretion of commissioners court)
- Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. 1986) (law-of-the-case scope on remand; general remand allows new issues)
- Bass v. Walker, 99 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (law-of-the-case and remand scope considerations)
- Four Brothers Boat Works, Inc. v. Tesoro Petroleum Cos., 217 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (remand scope; general remand allows new arguments)