Town of Flower Mound v. Rembert Enterprises, Inc.
369 S.W.3d 465
Tex. App.2012Background
- Rembert developed a subdivision in Flower Mound and was required to construct Auburn Drive as a condition of development approval.
- Rembert and Flower Mound executed three development agreements; Flower Mound paid 50% of Auburn Drive costs, with dispute over whether 100% reimbursement was due under the August 4, 2008 agreement.
- Rembert asserted breach of contract and sought declaratory judgments that (a) it was entitled to 100% reimbursement and (b) certain parties had ministerial duties to forward funds.
- Appellants filed a plea to the jurisdiction challenging subject-matter jurisdiction; the trial court partially granted the plea, and the parties cross-appealed.
- The court analyzed immunity from suit under the Local Government Code and the Declaratory Judgments Act, focusing on whether certain relief sought was a waiver of immunity.
- Rembert also asserted an inverse condemnation claim, arguing that the development conditions amounted to a compensable taking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether declaratory relief re: 100% reimbursement falls under waiver of immunity | Rembert argues Act/Ordinances require 100% reimbursement and seeks declarations. | Flower Mound contends the declaratory claims are a recast of contract/breach and not a valid waiver of immunity. | The trial court erred; declaratory relief seeking 100% reimbursement is barred by immunity; the declarations are recast of the breach claim. |
| Whether Jefferson and Springer lack immunity for declaratory relief claims | Rembert argues officials have ministerial duties to pay; no immunity for ultra vires or contractual relief. | Appellants contend individual immunity applies; relief is retrospective against Flower Mound, not individuals. | Sustained—claims against Jefferson and Springer are barred as improper recasts of a contract claim; immunity remains. |
| Whether the breach-of-contract claim is within the waiver of immunity under §271.152 | Rembert asserts the contract provides goods/services; waiver applies allowing suit for breach. | Appellants argue the agreement is largely a land conveyance and does not fit the goods/services test. | Sustained—immunity waived; the breach-of-contract claim is within §271.152 and jurisdiction exists. |
| Whether attorney’s fees related to declaratory relief are recoverable | Rembert seeks fees tied to declaratory judgments. | Fees recoverable only if immunity is waived for the underlying declaratory relief. | Sustained—no attorney’s fees for declaratory relief where immunity from suit was not waived. |
| Whether the inverse condemnation claim survives the plea to the jurisdiction | Rembert pleads an alternative takings claim based on exactions and/or ordinances. | Appellants argue Stafford-type reasoning and lack of nexus/proportionality entitles dismissal. | Sustained cross-issue in favor of Rembert; inverse condemnation claim remains viable as an alternative theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirby Lake Development, Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 320 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2010) (contracts to provide services can waive immunity under 271.152)
- Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tex. Political Subdiv. Prop./Cas. Joint Self-Ins. Fund, 212 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. 2006) (member-provided services can trigger waiver even if not the contract’s primary purpose)
- Home Town Urban Partners, Ltd. v. City of North Richland Hills, 340 S.W.3d 900 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2011) (joinder and waiver considerations in contract/municipal disputes)
- Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates, L.P., 135 S.W.3d 620 (Tex.2004) (exactions can be compensable takings if not proportional to impact)
- Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 138 S.W.3d 217 (Tex.2004) (immunity from suit and jurisdictional standards for pretrial pleas)
- IT-Davy v. Texas Parks & Wildlife, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex.2002) (waiver via Declaratory Judgment Act limited; claims recast as contract claims barred)
- City of Beaumont v. Bouillion, 896 S.W.2d 143 (Tex.1995) (joinder and immunity related to construction/interpretation claims)