i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 37 5- CV ED WA RD S AQ UI F ER

AU THORITY , Appellant/Cross-Appe llee

v . B o b b y HOR TON and L awr ence Del Papa, Jr., Ap pe lle e s/C ro ss- Ap pe lla nts Fr om the 38th J udicial District Court, Uvalde County , Texas

Tr ia l Co ur

t N o. 07 -0 3- 25 68 4- CV Honora ble Mickey

R. Pennington, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Febr uary 3, 2010 AF F I RME D I

N PA RT; REV ERS ED I

N PA RT Ed wa rd s A qu if e r Auth or ity

(“ EA A” ) a

pp e a ls the tr ia l c ourt ’s or d e r d i s m i s s i ngthe thi rd -p a rt

y claims asser

ted ag ainst EAA by

Bobby Horton and L awr ence Del Papa, Jr. Although E AA conte nds the trial cour

t proper ly dismiss ed the third-pa rty claims, EAA a sserts the trial c ourt err ed by denying its countercla im for attorne y ’s fees. Horton and D el Papa f iled a cr oss-appe al asser

ting: (1) EAA fa ile d to tim e ly a

pp e a l the or de r; and

(2 ) t he tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in dis mis sin g the ir

thi rd -p art

y c la ims
.04

- 09

- 00 37 5- CV

- 2- Ho ldi ngthat w e have jur isd ic tio n to c on sid e r thi s a pp e a l, w e a ff

ir m th e dis mis sa l of

the thi rd -p a rt

y claims; howeve r, we reve rse the portion of the trial court’ s order denying E AA’s c ounterc laim for
a tto rn e y ’s fe e s. B ACKG ROUND Horton and D el Papa pur port ed t o co n v ey

400 acr e-f

eet pe r annum of ba se irrig ation g roundwater to A& S Ranch, L td. in connection with the conve y ance of appr ox imately 368 acr es of
rea l property . When EAA subseque ntly advised Hor

ton and A& S that only

242 acr e-f

eet pe r annum of base irrig ation g roundwater we re c onvey ed as a re sult of the transac tion, A&S sued Hor ton and De l Pa pa purs ua nt t o th e te rm s o f t

he ir a g re e me nt. Ho rt on and De l Pa pa fi le d th ir d- pa

rt y c la ims a g a ins t E AA and oth e r t hir d- pa rt y de fe nd a nts
. Horton and D el Papa a sserted a taking s claim ag ainst EAA in addition to claims for promissory estoppel and tortious interf ere nce w ith contrac t. EAA filed both a motion for summary

judgme nt and a motion to dismiss for lac k of jurisdiction. The trial c ourt g rante d the motion to dis m i s s but denied EA A’s counte rcla im for attorne y ’s fe es. B e lie vin g that th e tr ia l c ourt ha d n ot p ro pe rl y

dis po se d o f i ts c ounte rc la im, EA A s oug ht a second he aringon the claim. The tria l court, howe ver, r uled that the counte rcla im was denied by the prior orde r. The tr ial court subsequently g rante d a sever ance with r eg ard to the claims ag ainst EAA. J URI S DI CT I ON Ho rt on and De l Pa

pa c on te nd thi s c ourt la c ks jur isd ic tio n to c on sid e r E AA ’s a pp e a l be c a

us e EA A f a ile d t o t i m e l y f

i l e a n o t i c e o f a

p p e a l f r o m t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s o r d e r g r an t i n g t h e m oti on to dismiss . The trial c ourt’s order , howeve r, did not dispose of A& S’s claims ag ainst Horton and De l Pa pa or Ho rt on and De l Pa pa ’s thi rd -p art

y c la ims a g a ins t th e oth e r t

hir d- pa rt y de fe nd ants . B e c a

us e04

- 09

- 00 37 5- CV

- 3- the tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r did no t dis po se of a ll c la ims and pa rt ie s, the or de r wa s no t fi na l and a pp e a la ble until the trial court g rante d the seve ranc e. Se e Pa rk Plac e Ho sp . v . E

sta te of M ilo , 909 S.W .2d 508, 510 (Tex. 1995). EAA timely filed its appea l after

the seve ranc e wa s g rante d. A TTOR N EY ’ S F EES Se c tio n 3 6. 06 6( g ) o f t

he Te xas Wate r C od e pr ov ide s a s f oll ow s: I f the dis tr ic t pr e va ils in a ny su it o the r t

ha n a su it i n w hic h it

vo lun tari ly

int e rv e ne s, the district may

seek a nd the cour

t shall gr ant, in the same act i o n , re co very for attorney ’s fe es, costs for

exper t wi t n esses, a

nd other c osts incurred by the district be fo re the c ourt . T he a mou nt o f t he a tto rn e y ’s fe e s sh a ll b e fi xed by the c ourt
. T EX . W A T ER C ODE ANN . 36 .0 66 (g ) (V e rn on 20 08 ). A tr ia l c ourt ’s awa rd of a tto rn e y ’s f

ees is t y pically revie wed on a

ppeal unde r an a

buse of discr etion standard. D o n c a s t e r v . He rn aiz , 161 S.W .3d 594, 606 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, no pet.). Be cause § 36.066(g ) of the Texas Water Code mandates that attorney ’s fees be awa rded, however , the t rial court in this case did not have the discretion to a

war d no attorney ’s fee s to E AA if EAA pr evailed. Bocque t v. Herring , 972 S.W .2d 19 , 2 0- 21 (T e x. 19 98 ); Ski Masters of Tex as, LLC v. Heinem eye r , 2 6 9 S. W. 3 d 6 6 2 , 6 7 4 ( T e x. App.—San Antonio 2008, no pet.). A pre vailing pa

rty is one who is vindicated by the trial cour

t’s judgme nt. In s. Co. of S tat e of Penn. v. O rosco , 170 S.W .3d 129, 134 (Tex. Ap p . — San Antonio 2005, no pet.). He re, EA A soug ht and obtained a

dismiss al of Hor

ton and Del Papa ’s claims ag ainst it. T h er ef o re, EA A

“ p r e v a il e d ” an d w a s e n ti tl e d to r e c o v e r a tt o r n ey ’s fe es. Id . (holding party obtaining dismissal of
c la im a g a ins t it i s a

pr e va ili ngpa

rt y ); see also Nauslar v. Coors Brewing Co. , 170 S.W .3d 242, 257- 58 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pe t.) (same ).04

- 09

- 00 37 5- CV

- 4- Althou gh § 3 6
. 0 6 6 ( g ) ma

ndates a n awa rd of attorney ’s fe es, the re asonable ness of the a mount of fe es to be re cover ed is g ener al l y a q u es t i o n of fa ct. Bocque t , 9 72 S.W. 2d a t 21 ; see also T EX . W A T ER C ODE ANN . 36.066 (g) (Vernon 2008) (pr oviding amount of attorney ’s fe es to be fixed by the cour t). Testimony of an interested witness may establish the re asonable ness of a n attorney ’s fe e
awa rd as a matter of la

w in cer tain instances; howe ver, that testimony must be direct, positive, and fre e fr om c ircumstance s tending to c ast suspicion thereon. Ragsdale v. Progre ssive Voters League , 801 S.W .2d 880, 882 (Tex. 1990). At the s econd hear ing reg ardingits countercla im, EAA prese nted expert testimony

reg ardingthe amount of attorney ’s fe es i t had incurred. The attorney for Hor ton and Del Papa, howe ver, c ross-examined EAA’ s expert and cha lleng ed EAA ’s fa ilure to file a ple a to the jurisdiction until almost a y ear afte r t he thi rd-pa rty claims wer e filed ag ainst it. I n addition, the expert’s testimony

included attorne y ’s fe es for 20 more hours the expert “believe d” would be incurre d in presentingthe re sults of the second he aringto EAA’s board of direc tors. I n denying the attorney ’s fe es, the trial court did not make any fac tual finding s reg ardingthe amount of attorney ’s fee s that were rea sonable. B eca use this court is not authorized to make orig in al fac tual deter minations, see I

n t ’l S ec . L i fe Ins. Co. v. Spray , 468 S.W .2d 347, 349 (Tex. 1971), EAA’ s counter claim must be rema nded to the trial c ourt for f urther pr ocee dings r eg ardingthe amount of attorney ’s fe es to be a

war ded. D IS M IS SA L O F C LAIM S A GA I N ST EAA I n th e ir c ro ss- a pp e a l, H or

ton and De l Pa pa c on te nd the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in

dis mis sin g the ir third-par ty claims ag ainst EAA bec ause EA A waive d its im munity by filing a n aff irmative cla im for
a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s . In Reata Constr. Corp. v. C ity of Dallas , 197 S.W .3d 371, 376-77 (Tex. 2006) , the Texas Supreme Court held t hat when a g overnme ntal entity

joins “into the lit iga

tion process by04

- 09

- 00 37 5- CV

- 5- asser ting its own af

firmative c laims f

or monetary relief

,” immunit y “does not ba

r claims ag ainst the g overnme ntal entity if the claims are connec ted to, g erma ne to, a nd defe nsive to the claims asser ted b y t h e e n t i t y. ” In t h o s e c i r c u m s t an c e s , t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t y i s s a i d t o h a v e w a i v e d i t s i m m u n i t y. Id . We join several of

our sister cour

ts, however , in ho l d i n g t h at t he asse rtion of a c laim for attorn ey ’s fee s in defendinga lawsuit is not the asser tion of a cla im for monetar y relief under the h o ld in g in R eata Constr. Cor p. See, e .g., Veterans Land Bd. v. Lesley , 281 S.W .3d 602, 628-29 ( T e x. A p p . — E a s t l an d 2 0 0 9 , p e t. f ile d) ; City

of D all as v . V RC L LC , 2 6 0 S. W. 3 d

6 0 , 6 4 ( T e x. Ap p. —D a lla s 20 08, n o p e t.) ; Harris County Tol l Road Auth. v. Southwestern Bell Tel., L.P. , 263 S.W .3d 48, 65 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2006), aff’d on other grounds , 2 8 2 S. W. 3 d 5 9 ( T e x. 20 09 ); se e als o B e

x ar Me tro . W ate r D ist . v . E

du . &Ec on om ic De v . J

oin t V e ntu re , 220 S.W .3d 25, 32 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa

n A nto nio 20 06 , p e t. d ism ’d a s mo ot) (r e qu e sti ngc os ts is no t an a ff ir ma tiv e c la im fo r m on e tary

re lie f) . T he re fo re , E AA ’s a ff ir ma tiv e c la im f

or a tto rney ’s fe e s d id n ot w a ive its i m m u n i t y. Ho rt on and De l Pa

pa a lso c on te nd the tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in dis mis sin g the ir takings c laim. Al tho ug h im mun ity

is w a ive d if

a takin g s c la im i s p ro pe rl y ple d, a tr ia l c ourt

sh ou ld g ra

nt a ple a to the jurisdiction when a plaintiff fails to a lleg e a valid taking s claims. Se e TCI W est E nd , I nc . v . Ci ty of Dallas , 274 S.W .3d 913, 916 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas 2008, no pet.). We initially note that the two g rounds asser

ted by EAA in its motion t o dismiss wer e that Hor ton and Del Papa’s takings c laim was invalid beca

use they failed to plea d: (1) an i n tentional act by EAA; or ( 2) the a

ppropriation of pr op e rt y fo r p ub lic us e . A s th is c ourt ha s p re vio us ly

no te d, ho we ve r, the se are no t r e qu ir e d e le me nts in a re g ulatory

taking s claim which is the ty pe of takings c laim asserte d by Horton and D el Papa.04

- 09

- 00 37 5- CV

- 6- See City of San Antonio v . El Dorado Amuseme nt Co. , 195 S.W .3d 238, 244-45 (Tex . App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. denied)
. I n it s bri e f, ho we ve r, EA A al so a sse rt s tha t Hor ton and De l Papa ’s takin g s c la im w a s in va lid beca use they lacke d standing to assert the c laim. B eca use standing is a component of subjec t matter jurisdiction, it cannot be waive d and can be raised for the first time on appea l. City of L aredo v. R. Vela Exx on, Inc. , 966 S.W .2d 673, 679 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied) . When a Texas appellate court re views the standing of a party for the f irst time on appeal, it must construe the petition in fa

vor of the party , and if ne cessa ry , revie w the entire rec ord to deter mine if any

evidenc e supports standing. Id
. To e sta bli shsta nd ingto pu rsu e the ir

takin g s c la im, Ho rt on

and De l Pa pa we re re qu ir e d to show EAA’ s action re sulted in a taking of Horton a n d Del Papa’ s vested prope rty rig hts. See Edwards v. Mesa Hills Mall Co. Lt d. Pship. , 186 S.W .3d 587, 591 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, no pe t.) ; Y az dc hi v . S

tat e , No. 14-04-00500- CV, 2005 WL 2149416, at * 4 n.7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h D ist .] 20 05 , p e t. d e nie d) (m e m. o p. ); see also El Dorado Amuse ment Co. , 195 S.W .3d at 245 (noting taking results when r eg ulation cause s phy sical invasion of owne r’s prope rty , denies owne r all economica lly

benef icial or produc tive use of land, or unre asonably interfe res with landowne r’s rig hts to use and enjoy

its property

). As a matter of law , one-ha lf of irrig ation pum p i n g rig hts, or the base irrig ation g roundwater, re mains with the owner of the land. Herrman v. L indsey , 136 S.W .3d 286, 291 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, no pet.). Therefor e, whe re la nd having irrig ation pumping r ights is conve y ed, the ba se irrig ation g roundwater rig hts a re convey ed to the new owne r
as a matter of law

and ca nnot be re serve d to the g rantor. Id
.04

- 09

- 00 37 5- CV

- 7- I n this case, the r ecor d establishes t hat Horton and Del Papa ini tially owned 629.5 a cre s of land with irrig ation pumping r ights. Prior to the c onvey ance to A &S, Horton and De l Papa conve y ed 38 7. 5 a c re s o f that lan d to ano the r pe rs on , th e re by a lso c on ve y ing38 7. 5 a c re fe e t pe r a nnum o f i ts base irr igation gr oundwater rig hts to the new owner as a matter of law. When H orton and De l Papa convey ed the r emaining 242 acr es of the land having irrig ation pumping rights to A& S, Horton and Del Papa only

possessed the r ight to 242 acre fee t per a nnum of base ir

rig ation g roundwater, whic h is the most it could convey
. Be cause Horton and Del P apa only reta ined a rig ht to 242 acr e fe et per annum of ba se irrig ation g roundwater due to their prior volunt ary conveyance , they did not have a rig ht to convey

400 acr e fe et per

annum of ba se irrig ation g roundwater to A& S as a matter of la w. There fore , Horton and D el Papa c annot establish that any action by

EAA re s u l t ed i n a taking of Horton and D el P apa’ s vested property rig hts. As a result, the trial cour t did not err in dismissi ng the takin g s c la im. C ONCL US I ON Th e po rt ion

of the tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r d ism iss ingthe th ir d-par ty c la ims a g a ins t E AAis
a ff ir me d. Th e po rt ion of the tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r d e nyingEA A’ s c ounte rc la im f or a tto rn e y ’s fe e s is
re ve rs e d, and

that c la im i s r e mand e d to the tr ia l c ourt fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. Kar en Ang elini, J ustice