Mira Mar Development Corp. v. City of Coppell
364 S.W.3d 366
Tex. App.2012Background
- Mira Mar Development sued City of Coppell seeking compensation for exactions under Texas Local Government Code section 212.904(e) after city hearings on Alexander Court subdivision approvals.
- Appellant purchased 18.5 acres in Coppell (2006) for a 29-lot subdivision; later sold lots to David Weekley Homes (2008).
- City Council hearings denied/limited cross-examination; initial award for taking was $21,709.84 with credits leaving $3,265.84 due to Mira Mar.
- District court denied Mira Mar’s summary-judgment for full compensation; second hearing awarded additional items but overall judgment awarded Mira Mar $40,280.84.
- Appellant’s third motion for summary judgment and City’s motion for summary judgment framed issues of due-process, exactions, and proportionality; trial on substantial-evidence standard, then de novo review on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exactions were roughly proportional and had essential nexus | Mira Mar—exactions fail rough proportionality/nexus | Coppell—exactions meet nexus and proportionality | Partial reversal; some exactions remanded for further proof of nexus/proportionality |
| Standard of review for City Council decision under 212.904 | Trial de novo required; deference not appropriate | Substantial-evidence review used; acceptable | Standard should be trial de novo; jury on amount may be allowed |
| Attorney's fees eligibility under 212.904(e) | Prevails on exaction claims; entitled to fees | Fees depend on prevailing on appeal and items won | Remanded to determine fee entitlement; prevailing-party status clarified |
| Whether certain exactions (e.g., offsite sidewalk, park fees, tree retribution) were compensable | Exactions bear essential nexus and proportionality | Some items lack evidence of proportionality or nexus | Reversal on several items; remand for items (6)-(10) and fees; partial affirmance |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1994) (necessity of nexus and rough proportionality in exactions)
- Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1987) (established essential nexus/rough proportionality framework)
- Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1998) (takings/compensation standards in Texas; outlines proportionality approach)
- Stafford Estates Ltd. P'ship v. Flower Mound, 135 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. 2004) (adopts rough proportionality test for exactions in Texas)