San Patricio County, Texas v. Nueces County, Texas and Nueces County Appraisal District, 13-14-00293-CV

Background

San Patricio County sued Nueces County under Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code §72.009 to resolve which county contains several industrial shoreline improvements (piers, docks, submerged lands) that both counties had placed on their tax rolls, producing double taxation for taxpayers.
A 2003 final judgment in an earlier boundary suit defined the counties’ common boundary by reference to the shoreline and expressly declared that “past and future natural and artificial modifications to the shoreline of San Patricio County shall form a part of San Patricio County.”
Disagreement persisted about whether that 2003 judgment includes docks, piers, and similar facilities as part of San Patricio County; San Patricio says yes, Nueces says no and relies on other doctrines for taxing those improvements.
San Patricio argues the case must be heard in a neutral county under §72.009 and that Refugio County was improperly stripped of the case by transfer to a Nueces County district court; San Patricio sought mandamus and appellate relief regarding venue.
The Nueces County trial court granted summary judgment for Nueces, denied San Patricio’s summary judgment, and entered a take-nothing judgment without determining the precise boundary locations for the disputed properties; San Patricio appeals.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §72.009 applies to this dispute over where specific properties lie given the 2003 judgment	San Patricio: §72.009 authorizes a neutral-county suit to decide where the boundary line is located when counties disagree, even if a prior judgment exists	Nueces: This is an interpretation of an existing judgment, not a §72.009 boundary dispute	Court of appeals brief argues §72.009 applies because parties cannot agree where the boundary lies and the statute empowers the neutral court to decide; San Patricio urges reversal of transfer to Nueces county
Whether the 2003 judgment’s phrase “natural and artificial modifications to the shoreline … shall form a part of San Patricio County” includes docks, piers, and similar facilities	San Patricio: Plain language includes all artificial modifications (including docks/piers); such improvements extend the shoreline and are therefore part of San Patricio	Nueces: These modifications should be governed by common-law rules on title to accreted or reclaimed/submerged land, not by the 2003 judgment language	San Patricio contends the 2003 judgment unambiguously includes docks/piers; brief cites maritime and riparian-law authorities supporting treating piers as extensions of land and urges courts to give the 2003 language its plain meaning
Whether Nueces’s summary-judgment evidence (surveyor affidavit) was sufficient and non-collateral attack on the 2003 judgment	San Patricio: Nueces’ affidavit was conclusory, not based on actual surveys, and amounts to a collateral attack on the final 2003 judgment	Nueces: Relies on surveyor opinion and prior records to place the properties outside San Patricio	San Patricio argues the surveyor’s opinions do not raise fact issues and cannot overturn a final judgment; the brief asserts Nueces’ motion effectively collaterally attacks the 2003 judgment
Whether the trial court erred by granting Nueces summary judgment, denying San Patricio’s, and entering take-nothing judgment without locating the boundary for the disputed properties	San Patricio: Trial court lacked jurisdiction/venue or, assuming jurisdiction, failed to decide where the line is; remand to neutral court or rendition that docks/piers are in San Patricio	Nueces: Maintains the trial court’s actions were proper under its view of the law and the 2003 judgment	San Patricio asks this Court to reverse and either remand to Refugio (neutral) or render judgment that the shoreline improvements are in San Patricio; the brief argues the trial court failed to exercise §72.009(b) jurisdiction to determine the boundary

Key Cases Cited

Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law, 404 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1971) (for maritime-law principle that piers/docks permanently affixed to land are treated as extensions of land rather than navigable waters)
Nacirema Operating Co. v. Johnson, 396 U.S. 212 (U.S. 1969) (structures connected to shore are treated as land for maritime jurisdiction purposes)
Cleveland T. & V.R. Co. v. Cleveland S.S. Co., 208 U.S. 316 (U.S. 1908) (historical support for treating wharves/piers as extensions of shore)
Reeder v. Wood County Energy, LLC, 395 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2012) (statutory/judgment language is given its plain meaning; interpretive rules)
San Patricio County v. Nueces County, 214 S.W.3d 536 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006) (appellate affirmation of the 2003 boundary judgment)
Lesikar v. Moon, 237 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (plain-meaning rule for common words in written instruments)