624 S.W.3d 671
Tex. App.2021Background
- Special commissioners issued a condemnation award on March 19, 2019; the statutory deadline to object was April 15, 2019 (first Monday after the twentieth day).
- NA Land Company attempted to file a written objection via the e-filing system on April 15, but encountered a payment-system error; an “Envelope Summary” from eFileTexas dated April 15 shows an error and a “draft” status.
- The trial court treated the award as a judgment “in absence of objection” and entered judgment for the State after finding no timely objection.
- NA Land moved for new trial, asserting the objection was timely transmitted to the electronic filing service provider (EFS) but failed to be accepted because of a technical/payment failure; the State argued the statutory deadline has no exception and that no filing occurred.
- The trial court denied the motion for new trial and granted the State’s plea to the jurisdiction. On appeal the Fourteenth Court held transmission to an EFS provider constituted a “filing” under the Property Code and Rule 21(f)(5), reversed the judgment, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transmitting an objection to an electronic filing service provider satisfies the Property Code filing deadline | Transmission to EFS on April 15 constituted filing and met the statutory deadline | Property Code deadline is strict; Texas Rules inapplicable and no exception for EFS transmission errors | Transmission to EFS provider is deemed a filing under Tex. R. Civ. P. 21(f)(5) and local rules; timely filed |
| Whether clerk receipt or clerk rejection is required for "filing" | Clerk receipt is not required; filing occurs upon transmission to EFS provider | The clerk never received/accepted the filing; the “draft” status shows it was never submitted | Clerk receipt is not dispositive; rule deems document filed when transmitted to EFS provider |
| Whether counsel’s unsworn statement about transmitting the filing may be relied on | Counsel’s unobjected-to statement that he transmitted the objection supports timeliness | Implicit challenge but State did not object to the factual assertions at hearing | Court may rely on unobjected-to counsel statements given duty of candor; they corroborated the eFile summary |
| Whether the plea to the jurisdiction and denial of new trial were proper given the filing dispute | Denial and plea were improper because objection was timely filed by transmission | No timely objection → commissioners’ findings became judgment; jurisdictional dismissal proper | Trial court erred in granting plea and denying new trial; case reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. G & S Invs., Inc. v. Constellation Newenergy, Inc., 459 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (interpreting Rule 21(f)(5) to deem e-filed documents filed when transmitted to EFS provider)
- Jamar v. Patterson, 868 S.W.2d 318 (Tex. 1993) (documents are filed when tendered to clerk even if fees unpaid)
- John v. State, 826 S.W.2d 138 (Tex. 1992) (condemnation statutes are liberally construed to benefit landowners; tolling where clerk failed to give required notice)
- Packer v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 764 S.W.2d 775 (Tex. 1989) (mandamus denied where special commissioners’ report error prevented rendition despite lack of timely objection)
- City of Tyler v. Beck, 196 S.W.3d 784 (Tex. 2006) (if no timely objection, commissioners’ report becomes judgment and the Rules generally do not apply)
- Pearson v. State, 315 S.W.2d 935 (Tex. 1958) (statutory objection period is not enlarged by procedural rules)
- Rayburn v. State, 356 S.W.2d 774 (Tex. 1962) (statutory time to object not enlarged by Rule 4)
- U.S. Gov’t v. Marks, 949 S.W.2d 320 (Tex. 1997) (courts may give weight to counsel’s unsworn representations when uncontroverted)
- Banda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. 1997) (counsel’s factual statements may be treated as evidence when opponent does not object)