the Village of Tiki Island v. Premier Tierra Holdings, Inc., 464 S.W.3d 435

Premier Tierra Holdings, Inc. owns property in the Village of Tiki Island and seeks a vested-rights determination for a mixed-use marina project.
Premier filed a declaratory judgment action under Chapter 245 to freeze regulatory rules at the time its plat was filed.
The City denied Premier’s 2010 plat application and enforced zoning regulations not exempt from Chapter 245.
Premier sought declarations that its rights vested in 2010 and that various zoning provisions did not apply, without seeking mandamus or challenging the plat denial.
The trial court denied the City’s plea to the jurisdiction; the court of appeals ultimately dismissed for want of a justiciable controversy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Premier's suit presents a justiciable controversy.	Premier's vested rights exist and must be determined; future action is unnecessary.	No live controversy; relief would be based on hypothetical future actions.	Yes, no justiciable controversy; case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the dispute is moot or unripe for judicial review.	Rights vested in the project as of 2010; denial of plat irrelevant to vesting.	Plat denial moots or renders ripe issues only if there is a necessary challenge.	Ripe/mootness precludes declaratory relief; case dismissed.
Whether Premier can obtain a declaration about vested rights without challenging the plat denial.	Chapter 245 rights attach to the project; plat denial cannot bar vesting.	Without a challenged decision, declaratory relief would be advisory.	No declaratory relief; advisory opinion not permitted; dismissal without prejudice.
Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction under Chapter 245.	Chapter 245 waives immunity and contemplates declaratory relief on vested rights.	Jurisdiction fails without a justiciable controversy and ripe, concrete injury.	Court lacks jurisdiction; dismissal with prejudice not appropriate, dismissal without prejudice.

Save Our Springs Alliance v. City of Austin, 149 S.W.3d 674 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004) (ripeness and justiciability under advisory opinions)
City of Helotes v. Miller, 243 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (live controversy in land-use decisions; no advisory opinions)
Brooks v. Northglen Ass’n, 141 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. 2004) (declaratory judgments limited to actual controversies)
Riner v. City of Hunters Creek, 403 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (ripeness; avoid advisory opinions; concrete injury required)
Miranda v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for reviewing jurisdictional pleas; de novo review)
Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (jurisdictional pleas; live controversy and ripeness)