Smith v. City of League City, 338 S.W.3d 114

Background

Glen Cove is a single-family subdivision bisected by a canal, with Seminole Drive Bridge connecting north and south sections.
TxDOT recommended closing the bridge in 2003 due to deterioration; League City declared an emergency closure and notified residents of impending construction.
In 2004–2005, League City explored canceling the bridge project; MB Harbour proposed a development requiring removal of the bridge and canal rights.
League City executed a development agreement with MB Harbour in 2006, consenting to bridge removal and MB Harbour indemnifying the city; bridge demolished in 2006.
December 2006 deed purporting to convey canal land under the bridge to MB Harbour is void; dispute facts involve ownership of canal, easements, and access.
Appellants, homeowners, filed suit in July 2007 asserting takings, due process, promissory/equitable estoppel, and declaratory relief claims; trial court granted League City’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Takings and property interest ownership	North-siders have private easements over Seminole Drive and bridge; taking occurred via demolition and lease to MB Harbour.	Roadways were public or dedicated; appellants lack private property interest; immunity and standing challenges apply.	Takings claim viable for north-side appellants; some claims dismissed for south-side appellants; remand on 99-year lease claim.
Standing to assert inverse condemnation	Plaintiffs alleged particular injuries from reduced access and denial of use based on their property interests.	Injuries are generalized public harms; no standing.	Appellants on the north side have standing for impaired access; south-side appellants lack sufficient injury; remand on the 99-year lease related claim.
Procedural and substantive due process	League City deprived property rights without notice/hearing and issued conveyances to a private developer.	Procedural due process claims cannot be monetary; city provided notice under TOMA; declaratory relief alleged in due course context.	Procedural due process claims dismissed for monetary relief; declaratory relief allowed on procedural/substantive due process violations.
Promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel	League City promised to rebuild the bridge and induced reliance to appellants’ detriment.	Promises related to a governmental function; enforcing them would impair ability to perform that function.	Promissory estoppel claim properly dismissed; equitable estoppel claims discussed but immunities and lack of waiver preclude recovery; generally denied.
Declaratory relief related to conveyances	Declarations sought invalidity of conveyances and preservation of property rights.	Some deeds are void or not justiciable; others involve non-governmental parties; some relief redundant.	Certain declaratory relief claims sustained as to procedural/substantive due process issues; others dismissed or remanded for amendment.

Key Cases Cited

Texas Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (Plea to the jurisdiction standards; liberally construe pleadings in favor of jurisdiction)
Brownlow v. State, 251 S.W.3d 756 (Tex. App.—Hou. Dist. 2010) (compensable property interest; ownership questions in takings)
Drye v. Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc., 364 S.W.2d 196 (Tex. 1963) (private vs public dedications; implied easements from plats)
Viscardi v. Pajestka, 576 S.W.2d 16 (Tex. 1978) (public dedications are questions of fact)
State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. 2007) (takings elements; public use requirement)
Bhalesha v. State, 273 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. App.—Hou. Dist. 2008) (material impairment of access; distinguishing private vs public access)
City of San Antonio v. TPLP Office Park Props., L.P., 218 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. 2007) (threshold de novo review of access impairment)
Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 554 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. 1977) (private property taking for private use; public purpose necessity)
Gatesco, Inc. Ltd. v. City of Rosenberg, 312 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. App.—Hou. Dist. 2010) (governmental immunity and waiver in declaratory context)
Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2004) (equitable estoppel considerations in government context)
Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (sovereign immunity and waivers; implied waivers in specific contexts)
Univ. of Texas Sys. v. Courtney, 946 S.W.2d 464 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997) (due process damages; jurisdictional considerations)
City of White Settlement v. Super Wash, Inc., 198 S.W.3d 770 (Tex. 2006) (governmental function analysis for estoppel)