Putnam v. City of Irving
331 S.W.3d 869
Tex. App.2011Background
- Irving created a convention center/entertainment complex funded by bonds up to $200 million and pledged multiple revenue streams.
- Voters approved three new taxes (event admissions tax, 2% hotel occupancy tax, and parking tax) in 2007 for the project.
- Taxpayers, including Joe Putnam, intervened in a declaratory-judgment action challenging bond issuance and revenue pledges.
- Trial court ordered Taxpayers to post security to continue participation; failure to post led to dismissal of their intervention.
- Appellate court held the trial court did not abuse discretion in requiring security or in dismissing the intervention.
- This is an expedited appeal under Texas Government Code chapter 1205 evaluating whether security and intervention dismissal were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Taxpayers establish a cause of action to warrant a temporary injunction? | Putnam residence shown; Taxpayers argue entitlement to injunction. | City contends Taxpayers fail to show a cause of action under GOV'T CODE §1205. | No abuse; Taxpayers did not fail as to cause of action under governing standards. |
| Do the Taxpayers have a probable right to relief against bond issuance regarding hotel project status? | Project not a hotel project; cannot pledge state revenue. | Project qualifies as a hotel project; pledges permitted. | Project qualifies as a hotel project; no injunction shown on this basis. |
| Can the city pledge the state's portion of mixed beverage taxes? | Section 2303.5055 does not authorize refund to City from State taxes. | Statute unambiguous; includes state refunds to governmental bodies. | Taxpayers failed to establish entitlement to injunction on this basis. |
| Are admissions and parking taxes void due to charter timing requirements? | Taxes imposed at a special meeting violating charter §17. | Ordinary interpretation; can be re-authorized at next regular meeting. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; special-vs-regular-meeting issue resolved against Taxpayers. |
| Does pledging additional revenue sources violate the voters' contract? | voters approved only three taxes; other sources breach contract. | Pledge congruent with voters' approval; does not breach. | No evidence of contract breach; injunction denied on this basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex.2002) (temporary injunction standards; irreparable injury factors)
- Alliance Royalties, LLC v. Boothe, 313 S.W.3d 493 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (temporary injunction standard; deference to trial court)
- Buckholts Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Glaser, 632 S.W.2d 146 (Tex.1982) (bond-security statute purpose to curb obstructive litigation)
- Cobb v. Tom James of Dallas, Inc., 109 S.W.3d 877 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003) (review of trial-court discretion; conflicts in evidence)
- In re Talco-Bogata Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. Bond Election, 994 S.W.2d 343 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999) (standard of review; deference to trial court on evidentiary conflict)
- Nunez v. Autry, 884 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.App.-Austin 1994) (interpreting ‘resident’ for purposes of governing-taxpayers statute)
- Taxpayers for Sensible Priorities v. City of Dallas, 79 S.W.3d 670 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002) (contract-with-voters doctrine; use of voter-approved taxes)