San Antonio Housing Authority v. Serento Apartments, LLC, 04-15-00075-CV

Background

Serento Apartments sued San Antonio Housing Authority (SAHA) for breach related to a HUD Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract under the Section 8 program; SAHA filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity.
The HAP contract is a standard HUD form: Serento received federal HUD funds in exchange for providing and maintaining low-income housing that meets HUD quality standards; SAHA administered vouchers and inspected units.
SAHA argued Serento’s petition affirmatively negated jurisdiction because the contract did not provide goods or services to SAHA that would waive immunity under Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code §§ 271.151/.152.
At the plea hearing the trial judge questioned whether Serento alleged any goods-or-services provided to SAHA; Serento’s counsel described providing affordable housing and property management for voucher tenants.
SAHA relied on precedent (notably E. Houston Estate Apts.) and statutory/pleading authority (Miranda, Miller) to argue an indirect or attenuated benefit to SAHA is insufficient to waive immunity; SAHA asked the appellate court to reverse the denial of the plea and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Serento’s contract claim	Serento contends jurisdiction exists under Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 271.152 because the contract involved goods/services related to housing administration	SAHA contends pleadings show any benefit flowed to Serento and voucher tenants, not SAHA — pleadings affirmatively negate waiver so no jurisdiction	Trial court denied SAHA’s plea; appellant argues denial was error and asks for reversal
Whether provision of low‑income housing or management services constitutes "goods or services" that waive immunity under §§ 271.151/.152	Serento: providing affordable housing/management for Section 8 tenants is a service that implicates waiver	SAHA: the benefit to SAHA is indirect/administrative; the contract provided services to tenants/Serento, not to SAHA, so no statutory waiver	Appellant relies on authority (E. Houston) that indirect benefit insufficient; trial court found pleadings inadequate but denied plea
Whether East Houston Estate Apts. controls	Serento attempts to distinguish facts	SAHA: East Houston is analogous—federal funds conditioned on providing low‑income housing do not create a services contract with the municipality for waiver purposes	Appellant argues East Houston supports dismissal; trial court outcome not in favor of SAHA
Whether the proprietary/governmental function dichotomy affects contract immunity	Serento implies governmental function analysis may limit immunity	SAHA: Tooke does not extend the proprietary/governmental dichotomy to contract-waiver analysis; even if applied, providing low-income housing is a governmental function and supports immunity	Appellant argues Tooke does not decide contract immunity under this dichotomy; SAHA would still be immune if it applied

Key Cases Cited

E. Houston Estate Apts., L.L.C. v. City of Houston, 294 S.W.3d 723 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (indirect benefit from low‑income housing did not waive municipal immunity under §§ 271.151/.152)
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (plaintiff bears burden to plead jurisdictional facts; courts first examine pleadings in a jurisdictional challenge)
Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice v. Miller, 51 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. 2001) (pleading sufficiency for jurisdictional matters and limits on evidence required at plea)
Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (describing proprietary/governmental function dichotomy for tort immunity and noting uncertainty applying it to contract claims)
Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (principles on attacking governmental actions and jurisdictional pleading standards)
Hendee v. Dewhurst, 228 S.W.3d 354 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007) (limits on evidentiary materials considered on plea to the jurisdiction)