Ranger Abbott v. City of Paris, Texas and Kevin Carruth
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 2651
Tex. App.2014Background
- Abbott purchased 7.77 acres in Paris, Texas, where half was an existing mobile home park; the rest was undeveloped.
- At purchase, City Manager Carruth told Abbott the mobile home park was an approved, non-conforming use; Abbott believed expansion was permitted similarly.
- Abbott submitted a plat; the Planning and Zoning Department said a rezoning from Commercial to Single-Family Dwelling No. 3 was required for expansion.
- Abbott believed the rezoning requirement breached Carruth’s letter and sued the City for multiple claims, including breach of contract.
- Prior litigation ended with this Court ruling Abbott failed to exhaust administrative remedies for contract claims, impacting subject-matter jurisdiction.
- In a later suit, Abbott asserted takings, due process, and equal protection claims, arguing exhaustion was satisfied and claims ripe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Abbott exhausted administrative remedies | Abbott exhausted all remedies before suit | Abbott did not exhaust for takings claims | No, exhaustion not satisfied; jurisdiction lacking |
| Ripeness of federal/state takings claim | Remedies exhausted; claims ripe for review | Ripeatence requires final state action; not ripe | Takings claims not ripe; need final administrative decision |
| Procedural due process claim viability | Open meetings/notice violated due process | Procedural avenues existed; not violated | Procedural due process claim barred; not shown error |
| Substantive due process viability tied to prior ruling | City ratification violated due process | Res judicata bars reconsideration | Barred by res judicata |
| Equal protection applicability to class of one | Treatment different from similarly situated owners | No meaningful distinction; failure to plead class-of-one | Precluded by Amstadt; not shown equal protection violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (ripeness for takings depends on final state procedures)
- Hallco Tex., Inc. v. McMullen Cnty., 221 S.W.3d 50 (Tex. 2006) (federal takings not ripe until state proceedings conclude)
- Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1998) (futility doctrine; not required to exhaust if futile)
- Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. 1996) (res judicata bars relitigation of matters already adjudicated)
- Bd. of Adjustment of City of Piney Point Village v. Solar, 171 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (unnecessary hardship not basis for variance)
- Bd. of Adjustment of City of San Antonio v. Willie, 511 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1974) (variance not authorized to accommodate highest and best use)