443 S.W.3d 428
Tex. App.2014Background
- Bank was served with a grand jury subpoena for account records in Oct 2009 and produced 38,966 pages.
- Bank sought to recover production costs under Finance Code §59.006; DA refused payment and a Rule 11 agreement was signed clarifying reservation of rights.
- Bank filed a protective motion in the miscellaneous proceeding; trial court denied it; Bank then filed a declaratory relief suit in the same court.
- Cross-motions for summary judgment were litigated; the trial court denied Bank’s partial summary judgment and granted appellees’ cross-motions.
- Final judgment entered May 16, 2012; this appeal followed; issue centered on whether §59.006(a)(3) unconstitutional takings and an award of fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §59.006(a)(3) effects a taking without just compensation | Bank—unconstitutional taking | County/Willis—no taking; statute permits government access | No unconstitutional taking; statute does not require compensation |
| If no taking, whether Bank can recover costs or statutory costs | Bank entitled to costs for production | Appellees argue no compensation claim under statute | No requirement to reimburse costs under taking framework; no reversal on costs |
| Whether attorney’s fees should be awarded | Bank prevailed on some issues; fees justified | Discretionary; fees not mandatory; amounts disputed | Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying attorney’s fees |
| Whether jurisdiction and res judicata bar the claims | Declaratory Judgment Act waives immunity; jurisdiction proper | Res judicata applies or mootness challenges | No res judicata bar; jurisdiction proper; claims not moot |
| Whether Bank’s appeal is ripe and the Banking Commissioner is indispensable | Ripeness present; Commissioner not indispensable | Indispensable party issue raised; lack of essential party | Bank’s appeal jurisdictionally proper; Commissioner not indispensable |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1973) (government need not pay for performance of public duty its owed)
- City of McKinney v. Hank’s Rest. Group, L.P., 412 S.W.3d 102 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (Declaratory Judgments Act waives immunity for invalid statutes)
- Gen. Servs. Comm’n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., Inc., 39 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. 2001) (Texas takings analysis aligned with federal standards)
- Sheffield Dev. Co., Inc. v. City of Glenn Heights, 140 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2004) (takings analysis and compensation framework)
- Rowlett/2000, Ltd. v. City of Rowlett, 231 S.W.3d 587 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (federal/state takings guidance applied to Texas)
- City v. CKs Asset Mgmt., Inc., 345 S.W.3d 199 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (binding authority on takings analysis and review)
- Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (Declaratory Judgments Act discretion on attorney’s fees)