# NUM BER 1 3-08 -005 82-CV



# C O U R T O F AP P E AL S

T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS

C O R P U S C H R I S T I

- E D I N B U R G

CITY OF A LTON, A ppell ant,

v.

CITY OF M IS SI ON, A ppell ee.

On a ppeal fr om the 206t h Di str ic t Cour t of Hi dalgo County

, Texas.



# M E M O R AN D U M O P I N I O N

Before J usti ces Yañez
, Gar za , and Benavides M emor andum O pini on by J usti ce Yañez

By a single issue, app ellant

, the City of Alton (“Alton”), cont end s the trial court erred

in issuing a w rit of ma nda mu s directing it to satisf y a $ 6 0

, 0 0 0 ju dgme nt in f avor of

## app ellee, the City of Mission (“Mission”). W e a f f irm. 1



## I. Ba ckground

In 200 3, in a decla rat ory judgme nt action bet w een Mission and Alton conce rning

extra-territorial jurisdiction, the trial court gr ant ed su mm ary judgme nt and awarded

atto rneys’ f ees in f avor of Mission. In 200 5, this Court af f irmed the judgme nt, an d the 2



## supre me cou rt de nied revi ew. 3



## On June 8, 200 8, Mission f iled a pet ition f or w rit of ma nda mu s w ith the trial court

requesting tha t the court direct Alton to pay the $60 ,00 0 judgme nt awarding atto rneys’ f ees

to Mission. Alton f iled a respo nse to Mission’s pet ition; the partie s f iled se ve ra l mo re

4



## “replies” and “respon ses.” On August 11, 200 8, the trial court held a hea ring on Mission’s

pet ition. On August 18, 200 8, the trial court issued an orde r gr ant ing Mission’s pet ition f or

wri t of ma nda mu s and issuing the w rit. T he w rit, directe d to the May o r a n d Ci t y

Com mission ers of

Alto n, st ate d:

W HEREAS, on May 1, 200 3, in the 206 th District Court o f Hi d a lgo Coun ty, in Cause No. C-1131 -01-D, City of Mission v. City of Alton

, the Court rend ered judgme nt in f avor of Mission against Alton w hich include d an award of $6 0,0 00 (hereina f

ter th e “Jud gmen t”);

S e e A n d e r

s o n v

. C i t

y o f S e v e n P o i

n t s
, 8 0 6 S

. W

. 2 d 7 9 1

, 7 9 2 n

. 1 ( T e x

. 1 9 9 1 ) ( “ A n o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g 1

f o r a w r i t o f m a n d a m u s i n i t i a t e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s a c i v i l a c t i o n s u b j e c t t o t r i a l a n d a p p e a l o n s u b s t a n t i v e l a w i s s u e s a n d t h e r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e a s a n y o t h e r c i v i l s u i t ” )

. A l t o n c h a r a c t e r i z e s i t s i s s u e a s f o l l o w s : “ C a n a c i t y b y M a n d a m u s e n f o r c e a J u d g e m e n t [ s i c ] f o r p a y m e n t o f a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s a g a i n s t a n o t h e r c i t y a b s e n t a

c o n t r a c t u a l a g r e e m e n t a l l o w i n g s u c h p a y m e n t w i t h o u t a c l e a r a n d u n a m b i g u o u s l e g i s l a t i v e e n a c t m e n t

a b o l i s h i n g i t s i m m u n i t y ? ”

S e e T E X

. C I V

. P R A C

. & R E M

. C O D E A N N

. § 3 7

. 0 0 9 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 8 ) ( “ I n a n y p r o c e e d i n g u n d e r t h i s 2

c h a p t e r
, t h e c o u r t m a y a w a r d c o s t s a n d r e a s o n a b l e a n d n e c e s s a r y a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s a s a r e e q u i t a b l e a n d j u s t

. ” )

.

S e e C i t y o f A l t o n v

. C i t

y o f M i s s i o n
, 1 6 4 S

. W

. 3 d 8 6 1

, 8 6 4

, 8 7 0 ( T e x

. A p p

. – C o r p u s C h r i s t i 2 0 0 5

, p e t

. 3

d e n i e d )

.

T h e 2 0 0 3 j u d g m e n t a w a r d e d M i s s i o n $ 3 0

, 0 0 0 i n a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s
, p l u s $ 1 5

, 0 0 0 i f A l t o n u n s u c c e s s f u l l y

4

a p p e a l e d t o t h i s C o u r t a n d $ 1 5

, 0 0 0 i f i t u n s u c c e s s f u l l y a p p e a l e d t o t h e T e x a s S u p r e m e C o u r t

, b o t h o f w h i c h

o c c u r r e d

.



## 2

## W HEREAS, Alton has the legal dut y to satisf y the Judgm ent

, Mission has m a d e w ritten dem and on Alton to satisf y the Judgm ent

, and Alton has neglecte d o r ref used to satisf y the Jud gmen t;

W HEREAS, the Judgm ent am oun t is f ix ed and certa in; a nd Mission has no ade quate reme dy at law in collecting th e Ju dgme nt;

T HEREFORE, the City o f A lt on and its of f icers, Salvador Vela

,

Ricardo Garza, Richard Alevalo, Em ilio Cantu

, Jr., Arturo Galvan and Hilario

Rincone s, are HEREBY MANDATE D to raise rev enu e to sat is f y t he

Judgm ent

, includin g but not limited to, (1) using any current and f utu re tax

y ear surplus rev enu e or rev enu e allocat ed f or misce llaneo us or cont ingency

e xp e n ses to satisf

y the Judgm ent and (2) levy ing and collecting add itio n a l

taxes in f utu re tax y ears, to the f ull extent of Alton ’s taxing power in orde r to

satisf y the Jud gmen t.

T his ap pea l f ollowed.

II. A pplica ble La w

Mand am us is the prop er reme dy by w hich a judgme nt can b e enf orced against a

political subd iv ision of the state

. T hrou gh ma nda mu s, a political subd iv isio n can be 5



## directe d to levy and to collect suf f icient taxes to satisf

y judgme nts out stan ding against the

ent ity w hen the re are not suf f icient f und s on ha nd. 6



## III. Disc ussi on

Alton argues tha t it did not agree to pay atto rneys’ f ees in the und erly ing action and

“theref ore, the re w as no imp licit w aiver of gov ernm ent al imm unity f or involuntary payme nt

D e l t a C o u n t

y L e v e e I m p r o v e m e n t D i s t

. N o

. 2 v

. L e o n a r d

, 5 1 6 S

. W

. 2 d 9 1 1

, 9 1 2 ( T e x

. 1 9 7 4 ) ( c i t i n g 5

N a t ’l S u r e t

y C o r p

. v

. F r i e n d s w o o d I n d e p

. S c h

. D i s t

. , 4 3 3 S

. W

. 2 d 6 9 0

, 6 9 4 ( T e x

. 1 9 6 8 ) ) ; s e e a l s o F o r t B e n d C o u n t y v

. M a r t i n

- S i m o n
, 1 7 7 S

. W

. 3 d 4 7 9

, 4 8 6 ( T e x

. A p p

. – H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t

. ] 2 0 0 5

, n o p e t

. )

.

D e l t a C o u n t

y
, 5 1 6 S

. W

. 2 d a t 9 1 2 ; F o r t B e n d C o u n t y
, 1 7 7 S

. W

. 3 d a t 4 8 6

. 6



## 3

## of atto rney’s f ees arising out of t h e De clarato ry Judgm ent action .” W e f ind Alton ’s

argume nt u npe rsuasive. As t he supre me cou rt ha s stat ed,

Sovereign imm unity ref ers to the State’s imm unity f rom suit and liability

. In add ition to p ro t e cting the Sta te f rom liability

, it also prote cts the v arious divi sions of state gove rnme nt, includin g agencies, boa rds, hosp itals, and universities. Governme nta l imm unity, on the oth er han d, prote cts politica l subd iv isions o f

the Sta te, includin g count ies, cities, an d sch ool d istricts.[ ] 7



## “Governme nta l imm unity, like the doct rine of sovereig n imm unity to w hich it is app urten ant

,

involv es two issues: w het her the Stat e has consen ted to suit a nd w het her t he Sta te h as

accep ted liability .” “Imm unity f rom suit is jurisdictiona l and bars suit; imm unity f rom liability 8



## is not jurisdiction al an d p rotect s f rom judgme nts.” 9



## In the prese nt case, Alton app ears to argue tha t it is imm une f rom suit. Alton argues

tha t this case is similar to City of Galvest on v. Sta te of Texas

, in w hich the supre me court

held tha t cities are imm une f rom suits f iled on beh alf of the Sta te by the Atto rney Gen eral

to recover mo ney dam ages. W e f ind Ci t y o f G a lveston to be inap posite ; here

, the 10



## und erly ing suit do es n ot in v olve the recovery of m one y da ma ges.

T he T exas Sup reme Court has not ed tha t certain decla ratory judgme nt action s do

not imp licate the doct rine of gov ernm ent al imm unity. An action f or decla ratory judgme nt 11

W i c h i t a F a l l s S t a t e H o s p

. v

. T a y l o r
, 1 0 6 S

. W

. 3 d 6 9 2

, 6 9 4 n

. 3 ( T e x

. 2 0 0 3 ) ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

. 7

H a r r i s C o u n t y H o s p

. D i s t

. v

. T o m b a l l R e g ’l H o s p

. , 2 8 3 S

. W

. 3 d 8 3 8

, 8 4 2 ( T e x

. 2 0 0 9 ) ( c i t i n g T a y l o r
, 8

1 0 6 S

. W

. 3 d a t 6 9 6 )

.

I d

. 9

C i t y o f G a l v e s t o n v

. S t a t e o f T e x a s
, 2 1 7 S

. W

. 3 d 4 6 6

, 4 6 8 ( T e x

. 2 0 0 7 )

. 10

H o u s t o n M u n

. E m p l o y e e s P e n s i o n S y s

. v

. F e r r e l l

, 1 7 7 S

. W

. 3 d 5 0 2

, 5 0 9 ( T e x

. A p p

. – H o u s t o n [ 1 s t 11

D i s t

. ] 2 0 0 5 )

, r e v ’d i n p a r t o n o t h e r g r o u n d s
, 2 4 8 S

. W

. 3 d 1 5 1 ( T e x

. 2 0 0 7 ) ; T e x

. E d u c

. A g e n c y v

. L e e p e r
, 8 9 3 S

. W

. 2 d 4 3 2

, 4 4 6 ( T e x

. 1 9 9 4 ) ( “ W e c o n c l u d e t h a t b y a u t h o r i z i n g d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t a c t i o n s t o c o n s t r u e t h e l e g i s l a t i v e e n a c t m e n t s o f g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t i e s a n d a u t h o r i z i n g a w a r d s o f a t t o r n e y f e e s
, t h e [ D e c l a r a t o r y J u d g m e n t A c t ] n e c e s s a r i l y w a i v e s g o v e r n m e n t a l i m m u n i t y f o r s u c h a w a r d s

. ” )

.



## 4

## seekin g only a clarif ication of rig hts, atto rney’s f ees, and costs—a s here

, in the und erly ing

action —is no t a s u it f or dam ages against the Sta te and is not barred by gov ernm ent al

imm unity. 12



## W e do not constru e Alton’s argumen t as assertin g imm unity to liability

. Inso f ar as

Alton atte mp ted to raise such an issue, w e conclu de tha t the issue w as inad equate ly

brief ed and w as th eref ore waiv ed. 13



## IV. Conclusi on

W e o v errule A lton’s issu e a nd af f irm th e trial co urt’s jud gmen t.

L INDA REYNA YAÑEZ,
Ju stice

Deliv ered an d f iled th e 14t h d ay of

Octo ber, 201 0.

S e e C i t y o f S a n B e n i t o v

. E b a r b

, 8 8 S

. W

. 2 d 7 1 1

, 7 2 1 ( T e x

. A p p

. – C o r p u s C h r i s t i 2 0 0 2

, p e t

. d e n i e d )

. 12

M o r e o v e r
, w e n o t e t h a t A l t o n w a i v e d a n y i m m u n i t y

- f r o m

- s u i t d e f e n s e b y f i l i n g a c o u n t e r c l a i m s e e k i n g

a f f i r m a t i v e r e l i e f i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g a c t i o n

. S e e C i t y o f I r v i n g v

. I n f o r m C o n s t r

. , I n c

. , 2 0 1 S

. W

. 3 d 6 9 3

, 6 9 4 ( T e x

. 2 0 0 6 ) ( p e r c u r i a m )

.

S e e T E X

. R

. A P P

. P

. 3 8

. 1 ( i ) ( “ T h e b r i e f m u s t c o n t a i n a c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e a r g u m e n t f o r t h e 13

c o n t e n t i o n s m a d e
, w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e c i t a t i o n s t o a u t h o r i t i e s a n d t o t h e r e c o r d

. ” )

. M o r e o v e r
, w e n o t e t h a t A l t o n d i d n o t r a i s e i m m u n i t y i n i t s a p p e a l o f t h e j u d g m e n t i n t h i s c a s e

. S e e C i t y o f M i s s i o n
, 1 6 4 S

. W

. 3 d a t 8 6 4

.



## 5