Opinion No.
Background
- TxDMV was created in 2009, transferring powers from TxDOT to the TxDMV Board; the Board has powers under Transportation Code chapters 1001–1005.
- Chapter 2301 governs the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) and its director as chief executive officer.
- Contested cases under chapter 2301 and Board rules require administrative law judge hearings, with the ALJ issuing a proposal for decision and the Board issuing a final order.
- Subchapter M (Lemon Law) provides that the MVD director conducts hearings and issues final orders for enforcement under that subchapter.
- Transportation Code 503.009 permits the Board to conduct hearings in contested cases under ch. 503 and incorporates 2301.606(a) procedures, giving the director authority to issue final orders under that framework.
- The Board may not delegate its final-order authority to the MVD director, and there is no implied delegation authority under existing statutes; conflicts-of-interest rules apply to Board members on a case-by-case basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to issue final orders in 2301 cases | Vandergriff contends sections 2301.709–711 authorize the Board to issue final orders in 2301 cases. | The Board relies on 2301.709 and 2301.710–711; the ALJ issues the proposal for decision and the Board issues the final order. | Board may issue final orders in 2301 contested cases except Lemon Law. |
| Authority to issue final orders in Lemon Law and 503 cases | Requests authority for the MVD director to issue final orders in Lemon Law and 503 enforcement cases. | Under subchapter M, the MVD director issues final orders; 503 references incorporate 2301.606(a) procedures. | Director may issue final orders under Lemon Law and 503 when properly invoked by reference statute. |
| Authority to delegate final-order power to the Director | Board can delegate final-order authority to the MVD director under delegation statutes. | No express or implied authority to delegate final orders; 2301.154 and related provisions do not authorize such delegation. | Board has no implied authority to delegate its final-order authority to the Director. |
| Routine matters delegation versus final orders | Board may delegate routine tasks to staff under 1003.002(d). | Delegation limited to routine, noncontroversial matters; final orders likely not routine. | Delegation under 1003.002(d) is limited to routine matters and cannot extend to final orders. |
| Conflict-of-interest applicability to Board members | Industry-representative members may participate despite potential conflicts. | Members must disclose interests and may recuse where substantial interests exist; apply ethics rules on case-by-case basis. | Board members must assess conflicts case-by-case under 1001.028 and chapter 572 ethics rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leland v. Brandal, 257 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2008) (plain-meaning governs; no doubt about statutory language)
- Schade v. Tex. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 150 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. App.-Austin 2004) (agency authority and delegation principles)
- Ballantyne v. Champion Builders, Inc., 144 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. 2004) (ministerial vs. discretionary acts; delegation limits)
- Lipsey v. Tex. Dep’t of Health, 727 S.W.2d 61 (Tex. App.-Austin 1987) (statutory delegation principles, agency authority)
- Moody v. Tex. Water Comm’n, 373 S.W.2d 793 (Tex. Civ. App.-Austin 1963) (limitations on delegation of duties)