Strother v. City of Rockwall
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 715
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- In June 2007 Strother filed suit against the City of Rockwall alleging a taking under Tex. Const. art. I, ¤17 for damages to her property or loss of use.
- Strother owns 2 acres with three commercial buildings at 2430 S. Highway 205, Rockwall; FEMA maps place part of the property in the 100-year floodplain.
- In March 2007 Strother had a contract to sell the property for $600,000; the City allegedly told buyers the property was in the floodplain and unusable, killing the contract.
- In Oct. 2006 FEMA revised maps affecting Strother’s property; City’s involvement was limited to a master drainage study by NWRS and responding to FEMA requests.
- Strother amended to include negligence-related and nuisance claims; City moved for plea to jurisdiction and summary judgment; trial court granted the motions and dismissed claims.
- This appeal followed, arguing there are genuine fact issues on takings; the court affirms the trial court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Strother prove a physical taking by flooding or related action? | Strother | Rockwall | No genuine issue; no evidence of intentional act causing flooding by the City; no physical taking. |
| Does Strother prove a regulatory taking given continued use and rent? | Strother | Rockwall | No; property remains in economically viable use; no denial of all use nor unreasonable interference proven. |
| Does sovereign immunity bar these inverse-condemnation claims? | Strother | Rockwall | Yes; immunity defeats jurisdiction, so plea to jurisdiction proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1998) (concerning regulatory taking and balancing factors)
- Blanton v. City of Dallas, 200 S.W.3d 266 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006) (economic impact and use of regulatory takings framework)
- Jennings v. City of Dallas, 142 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2004) (intent to cause identifiable harm or substantial certainty of damage for physical takings)
- Gragg v. Tarrant Regional Water District, 151 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2004) (need to show government intent to cause damage; reliance on expert testimony in some cases)
- Cummins v. Travis Cnty. Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 17, 175 S.W.3d 34 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005) (unreasonable interference requires direct, immediate, substantial impact on use)