the City of Friendswood and Kevin Holland v. Paul and Carolyn Horn, Mike and Lucy Stacy, Pete and Judy Garcia and Janice Frankie
01-15-00436-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 15, 2015Background
- After severe flooding from Tropical Storm Allison (2001), Friendswood acquired 38 of 42 lots in Imperial Estates via a FEMA Hazard Mitigation acquisition requiring the land be maintained as open/green space.
- Four homeowners (Appellees) did not participate in the FEMA buyouts and later rebuilt homes; they sued the City and Mayor Holland claiming deed restrictions limit the City's use and voting rights over the lots.
- The City amended deed restrictions for the 38 City-owned lots after proper notice and a public council vote; Mayor Holland executed the declaration as authorized.
- Appellees filed multiple suits and amended petitions asserting causes of action including declaratory relief (interpretation of deed restrictions), misrepresentation, nuisance, inverse condemnation, breach of contract, Open Meetings Act violations, and ultra vires claims.
- The trial court denied the City and Mayor Holland’s plea to the jurisdiction and motions to dismiss; the City appealed, arguing governmental, derivative, and official immunity barred the claims and that Appellees failed to plead a waiver of immunity or viable claims that overcome immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether governmental immunity bars suit | Horn et al.: immunity does not bar relief because claims fall within statutory/constitutional waivers or seek declaratory relief | City: immunity presumptively bars suit; plaintiffs must plead an express waiver and have not done so | Trial court denied plea; appeal argues denial was error (appellants seek reversal) |
| Misrepresentation (TTCA) | Appellees: City statements misled them about City action, causing reliance/damages | City: statements privileged/accurate; misrep not within TTCA waiver; intentional torts excluded | City contends claim barred by immunity; trial court denied plea |
| Nuisance / inverse condemnation | Appellees: City use/increased traffic is nuisance/taking of property rights | City: maintenance of its own parkland is governmental; alleged traffic/noise does not amount to a compensable taking; inverse condemnation elements not met | City contends claims fail as non-compensable and do not waive immunity |
| Breach of contract | Appellees: deed restrictions create contractual rights enforceable against City | City: §271.152 waiver applies only to written contracts for goods/services; deed restrictions are covenants/contracts among owners and not a statutory waiver | City argues breach claim does not waive immunity; trial court nonetheless denied plea |
| Declaratory relief (UDJA) over deed restrictions | Appellees: seek court declaration interpreting deed restrictions and City vote entitlement | City: UDJA waiver of immunity limited to statutes/ordinances or ultra vires claims; declaratory relief about private contract (deed restrictions) does not waive immunity | City argues claim barred by immunity; trial court did not dismiss |
| Ultra vires and Open Meetings Act claims | Appellees: Mayor acted ultra vires and City violated Open Meetings Act | City: Mayor acted within charter authority; evidence (agenda/minutes) shows compliance; ultra vires applies only to ministerial/unauthorized acts; Open Meetings claim disproven by records | City argues ultra vires and OMA claims fail and do not waive immunity |
| Individual immunity for Mayor Holland | Appellees: seek relief against Mayor for executing declaration | City/Mayor: derivative immunity under TTCA §101.106 and common-law official immunity apply; mayor acted in discretionary, good-faith scope of authority | City argues Mayor should have been dismissed; trial court denied motion |
| Injunctive relief | Appellees: request injunction to stop City development/use | City: equitable relief likewise barred absent an applicable waiver; no ultra vires basis shown | City contends injunction claim is jurisdictionally barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Federal Sign v. Texas Southern Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. 1997) (governmental immunity and waiver principles)
- Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (plaintiff bears burden to plead facts showing waiver of immunity)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (UDJA waiver limited to challenges to statutes/ordinances and ultra vires suits)
- Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008) (TTCA derivative-immunity dismissal provisions)
- City of Dallas v. Jennings, 142 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2004) (nuisance claims generally do not overcome governmental immunity; inverse condemnation required for takings theory)
- Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2003) (legislative waiver of immunity must be clear and unambiguous)
- Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. State, 381 S.W.3d 468 (Tex. 2012) (takings/inverse condemnation standards)