Honorable llenry !*lade 

District.Attorney 

Dallas Counts 

Dallas, Texas 

Opinion No. C-66 

Re: Interpretation of Article 

2372k, V.C.S., in the light 

of the submitted facts. 

Dear lir. %de: 

In a recent z-equest for the opinion of t:his office, 

you have in effect presented to usthe followinp fi!cts. 

A real estate developer and subdivider is developing a tract of land in Dallas County that is outsidc of the 

city limits of any incorporated city or town in said county 

and is not within five~miles of the city limits of any incorporated city or town. The developer and subdivider has never 

submitted any plat or map of ,said development and subdivision 

to the Commissioners Court of Dallas County for their action 

thereon, either as to approval or disapproval, or as to. the 

promulgation of any standards for the construction of roads 

shown thereon. The County Commissioners -Court has not promulgated any standards or specificati~ons for the'construction of 

roads and drains in subdivisions of the county as authorized 

under Article 2372k, V.C.S. The developer and subdivider has, 

however , prcsented~ his plat or map of said development and 

subdivision to the County Engineer of Dallas Countv and received certain oral instructions from him regarding the type 

construction for and drainane to the roads in the subdivision, 

but the developer has refusrd to carry out said oral instructions for building the roads in their entirety.~ Dallas County 

hasa population considerably~in excess of 290,000. The 

County Engineer of Dallas County has orally promuiEated, since 

the passage of Article 2372k, V.C.S., his own rules, regulations 

and standards pertaining to construction of streets and roads 

and drainape in subdivisions in the county; however, his specifications and standards have been within the bounds or limits set 

for standards which might be promulgated by the Commissioners 

Court under Article 2372k. 

You then in your opinion request ask the followin 

three questions, 

-321- 
, I 

iionorablc !Icnry !.lade, par*“ : (C-66 ) 

"(1) Do we have the authoritv to 

seek a mandator? injunction compelling 

the developer to complete this road 

according to the specifications set 

forth by this county? 

"(2) In the event you an55!er cuestion 210. 1 in the negative, then is our 

only recourse the right to ref:;se to 

accept this dedication? 

"(3) In the event the developer 

continuer, to sell lots without conpletinp. this road, may he then be enjoined 

from so doing until he completes this 

road according to our specifications?" 

In 19117 in the case of Commissioners Court v. SIester, 

199 S.N.2d 10011 (Tex.Civ.App.1947, error ref. n.r.e.1 the Dallas 

Court of Civil Appeals had before it a situation wheri the Commissioners Court of ~Dallas County refused ur.der authority of .Article 

6626, ~V.C.S., to approve a subdivision plat of land located in 

the county for filine!‘of said plat with the County Clerk. The 

County Clerk refused to file the subdivision plat without the 

Commissioners Court's approval. The Comrissioners Court had 

set up standards for county roads and for their drainape to 

which the subdivision plat did not conform. It was the Commissioners Court’s contention that it could require such conformance throuph Article 6626. 

.in existence, 

Article 2372k, V.C.S., was not then 

it being enacted in 1951. The subdivider sought 

by mandamus to cbmpel the Commissioners Court to approve the 

tendered plat for filing with the,County Clerk. The' Court of 

Civil Appeals held that the Commissioners Court lacked authority 

to refuse to approve ~subdivision plats,for filing with the County 

Clerk because the roads contained thereoz did not meet county 

specific&ions as established by the Comrissioners Court, 

Obviously, as a result of this holding by the Dallas 

Court of Civil Appeals, the Legislature passed Article 2372k 

in 1951 so as to enable's commissioners court to set standards 

for roads in new subdivisions that must be.adhered to by subdividers before their plats would be elipible for filing with 

the ~County Clerk and the roads contained thereon accepted as 

county roads, It is apparent that Article 2372k and Article 

6626 insofar as the subdivision of land such as involved in the 

instant situation is concerned must b& considered in para 

materia. 

-322- I 

.- c 
Honorable Henry Wade, pane 3 !!:-66 ) 

Article 6626 reads in part: 

"The following: instruments of writing. 

. . are authorized to be recorded . 

Ather instruments of writing conceriing 

. . 

any land . . . provided, however, that in 

cases of subdivision or re-subdivision of 

realproperty no map or plat of any such 

subdivision or re-subdivision shall be 

filed or recorded unless and until the 

same,has been authorized by the Conmissioners Court of the county in which the 

real estate is situated by order duly 

entered in the minutes of said Court, 

1, . . . 

Article 2372k applies to all counties haviny! a population in excess of'l90,OOO. 

Section 1 (a) thereof provides that the Commissioners 

Courts of such counties mip.ht require subdividers of land to 

provide for a minimum 60 foot rip.ht of way fcr roads .which are 

to be included in their subdivision. 

Section l-(b) provides that the Cormissioners Courts. 

of such counties mip.ht promulgate-reasonable specifications 

to be followed by the subdividers in construction OF roads and 

streets within their subdivision and for dracnage of such roads 

and streets. 

Section 2 provides that the Commissioners Courts 

might require of the subdivider a good and sufficient bond in 

.an amount up to $3.00 per lineal foot of road for'the insurance 

of proper construction and maintenance of roads in such subdivisions ,.said bond conditioned that such roads be constructed 

in acco~rdance with the specifications promulgated by the Commissioners Court under Section 1 (b). 

Section 3 provides that the Commissioners Courts ,of 

such counties are Sranted authority to refuse to approve any 

subdivision plat should the plat fail to provide for a minimum 

60 foot right of way for roads in the subdivision and should 

the subdivider fail to submit a sood and sufficient bond to 

insure the contruction of roads in said subdivision i,n accordance with specifications promulgated by the Commissioners Court 

under authority of Sections 1 (b) and 2. 
. . . 

Iionorahle ilenry 'Jade, pi:?2 4 (C-G6 ) 

::lhen the above two articles are considered together, 

we see that Article 6626 in part authorizes the County Clerk 

of the county where the subdivided land is located to file a 

subdivision plat of a tract of land situated five miles or more 

outside of the corporate limits of a city or town only when the 

subdivision plat thereof has first been authorized by the Commissioners Court of the county in which the real estate is situated 

by order duly entered in the minutes of the court. Ye also see 

that Section 3 of Article 2372k authorizes the Commissioners 

Court to refuse such approval under certain situations. 

This srant of the authority to the Commissioners Court 

contained in Article 2372k and Article 6626 cannot he considered 

as the bestowal of some idle and superfluous authority and duty 

upon the Commissioners Court~of'a county which subdividers and 

platters of tracts of land therein mip.h? ignore if they can 

successfully hide their subdivision and platting work from the 

eves of the Commissioners Court of the county where the subdivided land lies. 

It is encumbent upon such subdividers should they 

desire 'to have their plats filed for record in the County Clerk's 

office and/or to have the dedication of the streets and roads 

thereon accepted as "county roads " by the county to submit 

their plats to the Commissioners ~Court for its official consideration and action thereon, 

Upon the submission of a'subdivision-plat to the 

Commissioners Court, the court may then by virute of the authority 

granted by Article 2372k, promulgate reasonable standards and 

specifications, which are'consistent with the authority granted 

it by Article 2372k. Upon the fail'ure or refusal of the subdivider to Rive his bond (if required) or to make his plat conforn 

to such requirements, the Commissioners Court should refuse to 

authorize the filing of sai.d plat for record. 

In the instant case, no standards or specificati'ons 

have been promulgated by the County Commissioners Court relating to the acceptance of the dedication of streets or roads 

contained in thee subdivision of the tract in question. The 

subdivider has not even submitted his subdivision plat and 

plan for development to the Commissioners Court of Dallas 

County for their approval, ho legal obligations have been 

exchanged 'between the County Commissioners Court and the subdivider in respect to his subdivision, Obviously, if no oblip,ations exist between the countv and the subdivider, an injunction. 

would not lie with the county ap.ainst the subdivider.. 

-.325- 
. 

Honorable Henry !4ade, page 5 (C-66 ) 

Therefore, the answer to your first question is no. 

The County Commissioners Court does not have authority to seek 

a mandatory injunction compelling the developer to complete 

his road accordinn to the specifications set forth orally by 

the County Engineer. 

We answer your second question yes, In the event that 

the Commissioners Court has promulgated reasonable standards under 

the authority of Article 2312k, and the developer fails or refuses 

to Rive his bond (if required) or to make his plat conform to such 

requirements, the Commissioners Court's only recourse is to refuse 

the developer's subdivision, 

We answer your third question no. The County Commissioners Court cannot enjoin the developer from sell.inn lots 

Lthin his subdivision on the around that he has failed to 

complete the roads therein according to the oral specifications 

of the County Enp,ineer. 

Any statements in prior Attornev General's Opinions 

s-2952 and V-1qOl that are inconsistent with this opinion are 

overruled. 

SUMMARY 

The County Commissioners Court lacks 

authority under Article 2372k, V.C.S. to 

compel a subdivider and developer, under 

the stated facts, to complete roads in his 

subdivision according to the orally promulgated specifications of the County Enpineer. 

The County' Commissioners Court cannot 

arbitrarily and capriciously refuse to 

accept a subdivider's plat for filing, with 

the County Clerk. 

-326-