## IN THE SUPREME COURT O F TEX AS

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 N O . 11-0362

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

### W E S T 

### H A R D IN 

### C O U N T Y 

### C O N S O L ID A T E D 

### I N D E P E N D E N T 

### S C H O O L 

### D IS T R IC T 

### , P E T IT IO N E R 

### ,

v . 

### W A L L A C E 

### M A U R Y 

### P O O L E D 

### / B 

### / A 

### L & B P R O D U C T IO N 

### , R E S P O N D E N T

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

O N P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W F R O M T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E N I N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X A S

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

P ER CURIAM
The West Har din County Consolidated Independe nt School District o b t ai ned an in rem delinquent proper

ty tax judgme nt ag ainst an oil and g as lease that Wallace Maury Poole owned and operated. Poole did not appea l, and the District fore closed its judgme nt lien on the lease hold, taking

owner ship. The Railroad Commi ssion then direc ted Poole to plug a well on the lease , see T E X . N A T . R E S . C O D E § 89.022(d), which Poole failed to do. Poole asser ted that the responsibility lay with the District, the new owner , or alternatively , that the District had preve nted him from re- enter ing the premises with threa ts of criminal prosec ution. Ultimately , the Commi ssion, afte r a hear ing, order ed Poole to plug the well, see id

. § 89.042, and assessed a penalty ag ainst him, see id. § 89.046. Poole did not seek j u d i cial revie w of the order , see id

. § 89.087, and when he failed to comply , theCommi ssion plugg ed the well and broug ht an enfor ceme nt action in court to rec over the costs of the

operation and the pena lty , see id . § 89.121. Poole and the Commissi on settled. Poole then sued the District, alleg ing in part that the District’s actions had resulted in a taking of hi s proper

ty requiring compensa tion under arti cle 1, section 17 of t he Tex as C onstitut ion. The trial court dism issed Poole’s action fo r wa n t o f j u risdiction, but the court of appeals reverse d and

rema nded with re spect to the taking s claim. ___ S.W .3d ___ (Tex. App.–Be aumont 2011). Poole tells us that he seeks “dama g es that resulted afte r [t he Dist ri ct ] fore closed on [hi s] proper ty , including the amounts that he had to pay . . . for plugg ing the wells on th e l ea se and

. . .
re l at ed attorney s’ fee s and expenses”. Respondent’s Br ief on the Merits 4. The “esse nce ” o f h i s complaint, he say s, is that the District “re fused to resolve this situation and/or repla ce Poole as L ease operator—there by play ing Poole a g ainst the Commi ssion a nd causing Poole to pay excessive well plugg ing costs and L ease clea n-up costs, all (or a substantial portion of which) wer e the liability of [t he District].” Id. at 4-5. Poole thus contends only that the District has injured him, not that it has taken his proper

ty without compensa tion. “The text of section 17 waives immunit y only when one seeks adequa

te compensa

tion for proper

ty lost” to a g overnme ntal en t ity

. City of Beaumont v. Bouillion , 896 S.W .2d 143, 149 (Tex. 1995). Poole’s alleg ations do not asser t a taking for which immunit y from suit is waived. The District argu es t h at Poole is making an impermissible collater al attack on the tax judgme nt. The court of appeals concluded that eve n if the District was corr ect, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider Poole’s claim. ___ S.W .3d at ___. But Poole insists that “this lawsuit does
not challeng e the finding s of any prior tax o we d and does not seek to set aside or avoid any prior
2judgme nt: it seeks redr ess for damag es cause d t o P o ole by [t he District’s] subsequent bad acts.”

Respondent’s B rief on the Merits 11. Poole does not make a collater al attack for the trial court to consider. The court of appea ls held that the trial court had jurisdiction only over Poole’s taking s claim. Poole asser

ts in this Court no other g round for jurisdiction. We conclude that the trial court corr ectly dismiss ed Poole’s cas e. Acc ording ly , we g rant the District’s petition for revie w, and without hear ing oral argument, T E X . R. A P P . P. 59.1, reve rse the judgme nt of the cou rt o f appea ls and rende r judgme nt dismi ssing the c ase.

Opinion delivere d: October 26, 2012

3