Reverse and Remand; Opinion Filed July 24, 2013.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-00292-CV

RODNEY R. ELKINS & CO., Appellant

V.

UNO IMMANIVONG, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-5262-C

OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Evans

This is an appeal from a county court order dismissing Rodney R. Elkins & Co.’s lawsuit 

against Uno Immanivong for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellant contends the county 

court, sitting in its appellate capacity, had jurisdiction over the case because the amount in 

controversy did not exceed $10,000 when the action was filed in the justice of the peace court.

Appellant also complains he was denied the opportunity to be heard on the motion to dismiss 

before it was granted by the court. We conclude that the county court erred in dismissing the 

suit because the amount of damages specifically pleaded in the justice court were within its 

jurisdictional limits and there was no evidence the allegations were fraudulently made to confer 

jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal order and remand the cause to the county

court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
–2–

Appellant sued appellee in justice court to recover $8,416.26 in unpaid legal fees, 

interest, and necessary attorney’s fees in an unspecified amount. The justice court granted 

appellant’s motion for summary judgment and rendered a final judgment in its favor for 

$13,550.27. Appellee appealed the judgment to the county court. Appellee then filed a motion 

in county court to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction arguing that when appellant filed its

original petition in justice court, it was clear the amount of attorney’s fees would be over

$1,583.74 and, thus, the amount in controversy exceeded the justice court’s $10,000 

jurisdictional limit. The county court granted appellee’s motion to dismiss after a hearing at 

which appellant did not appear; it appeared one and one-half hours later. The court later denied 

appellant’s motion to set aside the dismissal order. This appeal ensued. 

Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de 

novo. See Tex. Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004) (plea to 

the jurisdiction); U. Lawrence Boze’ & Assoc., P.C. v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 368 S.W.3d 

17, 23 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (motion to dismiss for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction). Where, as here, the jurisdictional challenge is based on the amount in 

controversy, the plaintiff’s pleadings are generally determinative unless the defendant 

specifically alleges and proves the amount was pleaded merely as a sham for the purpose of 

wrongfully obtaining jurisdiction or can readily establish that the amount in controversy does not 

fall within the court’s jurisdictional limits. See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 

554–55 (Tex. 2000); Hoffman v. Cleburne Bldg. & Loan Ass’n, 22 S.W.154, 155 (Tex. 1893); 

Delk v. City of Dallas, 560 S.W.2d 519, 520 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1977, no writ). When the 

petition does not affirmatively demonstrate the absence of jurisdiction, the petition should be 

liberally construed in favor of jurisdiction. Garza v. Chavarria, 155 S.W.3d 252, 255 (Tex. 

App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.). Moreover, if the original petition is within the jurisdictional 
–3–

limits, but an amendment increases the amount in controversy above the court’s jurisdictional 

limits, the court continues to have jurisdiction if the additional amount accrued because of the 

passage of time. Continental Coffee Products Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444, 449 (Tex. 1996). 

Pursuant to statute, the justice court has original jurisdiction of civil matters in which 

exclusive jurisdiction is not in the district or county court and in which the amount in 

controversy is not more than $10,000 exclusive of interest. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§ 27.031(a)(1) (West Supp. 2012). When a case originally filed in justice court is appealed to the 

county court, the county court’s appellate jurisdiction is restricted to the jurisdictional limits of 

the justice court, because a county court has no jurisdiction over the appeal unless the justice 

court had jurisdiction. Crumpton v. Stevens, 936 S.W.2d 473, 476 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

1996, no writ); see Childress Oil Co. v. Wood, 111 Tex. 165, 166, 230 S.W. 143 (1921) (“If the 

Justice Court is without jurisdiction there can be no jurisdiction in the County Court. While the 

case is tried de novo in the County Court, its power is not original. The case is there only in 

virtue of the appeal. With this true, its power to determine it on the appeal cannot exist if the 

original tribunal had no power to consider it.”).

In this case, appellant’s pleadings in the justice court sought damages in the amount of 

$8,416.26 plus interest and “reasonable and necessary attorney fees.”1 There is nothing in the 

record to indicate that appellant specifically pleaded an amount that was outside the 

jurisdictional amount of the justice court and, therefore, the appellate jurisdiction of the county 

court. In fact, at least one court has held that when a plaintiff pleads damages in an amount that 

is within the jurisdictional limit plus reasonable attorney’s fees in an unspecified amount, the 

court has jurisdiction. See Whitley v. Morning, 814 S.W.2d 537, 538 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1991, 

 

1 The amount of interest is expressly excluded for purposes of calculating the amount of controversy for 

jurisdictional purposes. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 27.031(a)(1).
–4–

no writ) (pleading seeking $4,500 in damages plus “reasonable attorney’s fees” did not exceed 

court’s jurisdictional limit of $5,000).

On appeal and in the court below, appellee has argued it was “unrealistic and 

disingenuous” for appellant to presume the attorney’s fees in this case would be limited to 

$1,583.74—the difference between the $10,000 jurisdiction limit and $8,419.26 in actual 

damages pleaded, exclusive of interest. There is nothing in the record indicating the amount of 

attorney’s fees that had accrued at the time the petition was filed. Appellee contends, however, 

there was too much legal work to do to complete the case for $1,583.74. But appellee has cited 

no case, and we have found none, that would require plaintiff to estimate the amount of future 

attorney’s fees required to bring the case to conclusion for purposes of calculating the amount in 

controversy. As appellant points out, such an estimate depends on many factors including 

whether the defendant answers the petition. In fact, the pleading of attorney’s fees on appeal to 

county court in an amount greater than original jurisdiction does not deprive the county court of 

jurisdiction. See Crumpton, 936 S.W.2d at 477. Such fees are considered additional damages as 

a result of the passage of time. Id. 

Because appellee failed to prove appellant’s pleading allegations as to the amount in 

controversy were merely a sham for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining jurisdiction or that the 

amount in controversy did not fall within the court’s jurisdictional limits when filed, the county 

court erred in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 
–5–

Our resolution of appellant’s first issue makes it unnecessary to address its second issue. 

We reverse the dismissal order and remand the cause to the county court for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. 

 

120292F.P05

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
–6–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

RODNEY R. ELKINS & CO., Appellant

No. 05-12-00292-CV V.

UNO IMMANIVONG, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-11-5262-C.

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, 

Justices Lang and Myers participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order dismissing this 

case for lack of jurisdiction is REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court for 

further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

It is ORDERED that appellant Rodney R. Elkins & Co. recover its costs of this appeal 

from appellee Uno Immanivong.

Judgment entered this 24th day of July, 2013.

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE