Texas Transportation Commission and Ted Houghton, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Texas Transportation Commission v. City of Jersey Village
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 10609
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- TxDOT is widening US Hwy 290; the project requires relocation of five Jersey Village municipal utility lines (three in segment six, two likely in segment seven) that currently sit in easements owned/claimed by Jersey Village.
- Tex. Transp. Code § 203.092 requires the State to pay relocation costs for utilities that have a compensable property interest in the land occupied by the facility; the statute defines relocation cost as "the entire amount paid by the utility properly attributable to the relocation" less specified deductions.
- Jersey Village sought reimbursement from TxDOT for the cost of acquiring replacement easements as part of relocation; TxDOT refused and offered relocation within the new state right-of-way instead.
- The parties negotiated and TxDOT agreed to reimburse many relocation costs for segment six but explicitly excluded replacement-easement acquisition costs; Jersey Village then sued the Texas Transportation Commission and its chair (official capacity) seeking declaratory relief that replacement-easement costs are reimbursable under §203.092.
- Trial court granted Jersey Village summary judgment; the Commission and chair filed an interlocutory appeal asserting sovereign immunity. The court of appeals reversed, holding the suit barred by sovereign immunity because replacement-easement costs are not "properly attributable to the relocation."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars Jersey Village’s declaratory claim under the UDJA | UDJA waives immunity for declaratory construction of §203.092; court can declare replacement-easement costs reimbursable | UDJA does not waive sovereign immunity for declaratory claims that effectively seek money from the State; only an ultra vires suit against state officials survives | The court treated Jersey Village’s claim as ultra vires; UDJA alone did not waive immunity for the claimed relief against the agency |
| Nature of Jersey Village’s claim: statutory-construction vs ultra vires | The claim is a pure statutory-construction/declaratory-judgment action about §203.092 | The claim is, in substance, an ultra vires claim seeking to compel a ministerial payment under §203.092 | Court held the pleadings asserted only an ultra vires claim (challenging officials’ refusal to pay) rather than a standalone UDJA challenge to statute validity |
| Whether replacement-easement acquisition costs are "properly attributable to the relocation" under §203.092(d) | Replacement-easement acquisition is part of relocation and thus recoverable when the utility has compensable easement rights | Such acquisition costs are not properly attributable; paying them could be an unconstitutional gift or amount to buying land for the utility | Court construed §203.092 (guided by State v. City of Austin) and held replacement-easement costs are not included as relocation costs |
| Whether the Commission/chair acted ultra vires by refusing to reimburse replacement-easement costs | Jersey Village: refusal amounted to failure to perform a statutory duty under §203.092 | Defendants: statute did not require reimbursement for replacement easements, so refusal was lawful and not ultra vires | Because §203.092 does not require reimbursement for replacement easements, defendants’ refusal was not ultra vires; claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for reviewing plea to jurisdiction; consider evidence and summary-judgment-like analysis)
- IT-Davy (Tex. Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy), 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (ultra vires suits against state officials are not suits against the State barred by sovereign immunity)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires claim must allege officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act)
- Tex. Dept. of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2011) (limits on UDJA waiver; distinguishing UDJA challenges to statute validity from claims seeking construction/enforcement under a statute)
- Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Emmett, 459 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. 2015) (clarifies that claims to compel performance of statutory obligations may be ultra vires; remedies for ultra vires claims are limited)
- State v. City of Austin, 331 S.W.2d 737 (Tex. 1960) (predecessor statute interpretation: costs to acquire right-of-way owned by utility are not "properly attributable" to relocation to avoid unconstitutional gift)