## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 3 3 7 - CV A RLO L. SC H RI V ER A S TR U STEE O F THE SCHRI VER F AM I L Y TRUST AP P E L LANT V . TH E TEXA S D EPA RTM EN T O F A PPELL EE T R ANS P OR T AT I ON

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 141STDI STRI CT CO URT O FTARRAN T CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### OPI NI ON

----- ----- -- I n a si ngl e i ssue, appel l antA r l o L. Sch r i veras t r ust ee oft he S chr i ver F a m i l yT rus t ( th e T rus t) as se rt s th a t th e tri a l c o u rterred i n g ran ti n g the p l e a to t he j ur i sd i ct i on f i l ed by appel l ee t he Texa s D epa rt m entofTr ans port at i on (T x D O T ). W e a ffir m .2 I . Bac kgr ound The Tr us tow ns ap pr oxi m at el y . 251 ac r esof l and i n Tar r antCount y ( t he Pr oper t y) t hati s subj ectt o a t w ent y- yearbi l l boar d l ease hel d by C l earC hann el O u td o o r, I n c . (C l e a r C h a n n e l ). I n M a y2 0 0 6 , H a l ff A s s o c i a te s , I n c . (H a l ff), p u r p o rt i n g t o a c tf o rT x DOT , s e n ta l e t t e rt o t h e T r u s ts t a t i ng t h a tT x DOT i nt end ed t o ac qui r e t he Pr ope rt y f orco ns t r uct i on ofSt at e Hi ghw ay 121 . Ci t i ng an i ndep enden tappr ai sal , TxD O T ( t hr oug h H al f f ) of f er ed t o pay t he T r ust $ 2 9 3 ,3 0 0 for a l l i n tere sts i n the P rop e rt y . T h e o ffer dir e c ted the T rus t t o neg ot i at e w i t h a ny l es se esori nt er es tow ner s i n t he Pr ope rt y. A f ew w ee ksl at er , t he Tr us t ’ s at t or neys enta l et t ert o Hal f fpur port i ng to a c c e p t T x D O T ’s o ffe r b u t s ta ti n g th a t i ts a c c e p ta n c e a p p l i e d to “ th e T ru s t’s i n te re s t i n th e P ro p e rtya l o n e , e x c l u s i v e o f a n yo th e r i n te re s ts i n th e P ro p e rty .” M o reo v e r, the T rus t r ej e c ted T x D O T ’s d i rec tiv e t h a t t h e T rus t ne g o ti a te w i th l es se esoft he Pr ope rt y. H al f f ’ s l et t er i n r es pons e a ck now l edg ed t he Tr us t ’ s “a cc ept anc e” but s o u g h tt o “ a m e lio r a t e a n ym is u n d e r s t a n d in g t h a tm ig h th a v e b e e n p r e s e n tin [ t he part i es’ ] pr evi ous com m uni cat i ons. ” Speci f i cal l y, t he l et t erexpl ai ned t hat Tx D O T’ s of f err epr esent ed one hu ndr ed per centoft he appr ai sed val ue, r equi r ed t he T r ustt o nego ti a te w i t h any l esseesso t hati tcoul d pr ovi de “f ee si m pl e” ti tl e , a n d w a s “ th e o n l yo ffe r a n y o n e w i l l o ffe r th e T ru s t.”3

Th e Tr ustdi sput ed t he l egal i t y ofTxD O T’ s r equi r em entt hatt he T rust nego t i at e w i t h ot heri nt er estow ner s i n t he Pr oper t y. The T r ustal so expr essed c o n c e rn a b o u t H a l ff’ s a u th o ri ty to a c t o n b e h a l f of T x D O T an d i n fo rm e d H a l ff t hati tw oul d not f urt herr espond to T x D O T’ s of f erunt i l H al f fpr ovi ded docu m ent s est abl i shi ng H al f f ’ s aut hor i t y. H a l ff t hen sentt he T r usta f or m al f i nal
- of f erl et t erand expl ai ned t hati ft h e of f erw as notaccept ed w i t hi n t en d a y s , itw o u ld b e d e e m e d re je c t e d . T h e le t t e ra ls o s t a t e d t h a tift h e T r u s td id n o t a c c e p t th e o ffer, T x D O T w o u l d c o m m e n c e em i n e n t do m a i n p roc e e d i n g s to con dem n t he Pr ope rt y. I n r es pons e, t he Tr us ts t at ed t hat “w e st and by our pr i orac ce pt anc e o f T xD O T ’ s off ert o pur cha set he Tr us t ’ s i nt er es ti n t he Pr ope rt y f ort he su m of $29 3, 300 . 00. ” T he Tr us tal so ag ai n r equ es t ed doc um ent at i on e st abl i sh i ng Ha l f f ’ s a u t h o r i t y . T h e r e a f t e r , Ha l f ff o r wa r d e d t h e T r u s ta n e - ma i l f r o m Tx DOT d is c u s s in g t h e T r u s t ’s a s s e rt io n s . T x D O T e x p la in e d t h a t“ t h e f e e s im p le i n t e r e s t. . . t h a th a s b e e n o f f e r e d , i s f o ra l l i n t e r e s t s i n t h e p r o p e rt y . ” T x DOT a l so d i sa g ree d w i th the T rus t’ s a ss e rt i o n tha t T x D O T h a d to n e g o ti a te s e p a r a t e l ywi t h e a c h o w ne ro fa n i n t e r e s ti n t h e P r o p e rt y . F i n a l l y , T x DOT r e f u s e d t o c lo s e w it h t h e T r u s t u n le s s t h e T r u s tw o u ld a g r e e t o d is p o s e o fa ll i nt er es t s ofan y ow ner s i n t he Pr ope rt y.1 ... S eeTex. Ci v. Pr ac . & R em . C ode A nn. § 51. 014 ( a) ( 8) ( V er non

2 0 0 8 ). H a lf fis n o ta p a rt yt o t h is a p p e a l.

2 ... See Tex . D ep ’tof Par ks& W i ldl if e v. Mi randa , 133 S. W . 3d 217, 2 2 5

– 2 6 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ); Cit y of Car rol lton v. Si

nger, 2 32 S. W . 3d 790, 794 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 7 , p e t. d e n i e d ). 4 T h e T ru s t th e n fi l e d s u i t a g a i n s t H a l ff a n d T x D O T u n d e r th e U n i fo rm D ec l ar at or y Ju dgm ent s A ct( U D JA ) , s ee ki ng de cl ar at or y r el i eft o r es ol ve t he p a rt ie s ’ d is p u t e s a s t o : (1 ) w h e t h e r H a lf fh a d a u t h o r it yt o n e g o t ia t e o n b e h a lf ofan d bi nd TxDO T t o a pr e- con dem nat i on a gr ee m entw i t h t he Tr us t ; ( 2) t he l ega l i t y oft he r equ i r em entt hatt he Tr us tdeal w i t h ot heri nt er es tow ner s on TxD O T’ s beh al f ; and ( 3) t he val i di t y and co ns t r uct i on of , an d t he part i es ’ s t at us and r i ghtsw i t h r espectt o, t he w r i t t en set t l em entagr eem entt he T r ustbel i eves w as r eached p u rsuant t o t he part i es’ com m uni cat i ons. The T r ustal so r equest ed an aw ar d ofcost s and at t or ney’ s f ees. TxD O T ans w er ed and f i l ed a p l ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on a ss ert i ng s ove r ei gn i m m uni t y f r om t he Tr us t ’ s su i t . The t r i al co urtgr an t ed T xD O T’ s pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on a nd t hi s i nt er l ocu t or y a ppe al f ol l ow ed. 1 I I . St andar d ofRev i ew W e r evi ew t he t r i al co urt ’ s r ul i ng on a pl ea to t he j ur i sd i ct i on ba se d on i m m uni t y f r om sui tundera de novo st andar d ofr evi ew . 2 I n r evi ew i ng t he3 ... S ee State v. Fi esta Mart

, I nc. , 233 S. W . 3d 50, 53– 5 4 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] 2007 , pe t . de ni ed) ( ci t i ng Choco l ate Bayo u W

ater Co . & Sa n d

Supp lyv. T

ex . Na tura l

Res . Co n s erva ti

o nCo m m 'n , 124 S. W . 3d 8 4 4 , 8 4 9 (T e x . A p p .— A u s ti n 2 0 0 3 , p e t. d e n i e d )).

4 ... See Mi

randa , 1 3 3 S .W .3 d a t 2 2 6 ; Si nger, 232 S. W . 3d a t795. 5 ... See Bl

and I ndep. Sch. D i

st. v. Blue , 3 4 S .W .3 d 5 4 7 , 5 5 4 (T e x . 2 0 0 0 ); We rth m a n n v. City o f Fo rt Wo rth , 1 2 1 S . W . 3 d 8 0 3 , 8 0 6 ( T ex . A pp . — Fo rt W o rth 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.).

6 ... See Mi

randa , 1 3 3 S .W .3 d a t 2 2 6 ; Si nger, 232 S. W . 3d a t794. 5 deni al ofa pl ea t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on, w e do not rev i e w t he m er i t s oft he case. 3 W e c ons t r ue t he pl ea di ngs l i ber al l y i n f avo roft he pl ai nt i f fan d l ookt o t he p l a i n ti ff’ s i n ten t. 4O urf ocu s i s noton t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s cl ai m s buton t he al l egat i ons i n t he pl eadi ngs. 5 W h e th e r a p l ai nt i f fhas al l eged f act s t hat af f i r m at i vel y dem onst r at e a t r i al court ’ s subj ect m at t er j ur i sdi ct i on, orw het her undi sp ut ed evi den ce ofj ur i sd i ct i ona l f ac t s es t abl i sh esa t r i al co urt ’ s j ur i sd i ct i on, i sa q u e s t i o n o fl a w. 6 III . A n a ly s is I n a si ngl e i ssue, the T r ustassert s t hatthe t r i al courthas subj ectm at t er j ur i sdi ct i on ov eri t s decl ar at or y j udg m ent act i on because t he part i es ent er ed an agr ee m ents et t l i ng a n e m i nen tdom ai n cl ai m f orw hi ch TxD O T’ s i m m uni t y f r om su i tw asw ai ved an d, t her ef or e, TxD O T’ s i m m uni t y i s l i ke w i sew ai ved f ort he7 ... See Tex. A & MUniv. -Ki ngs vi l le v. La wso n , 87 S . W . 3d 518, 521– 22 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ) (p l u ra l i tyo p .); Si nger, 2 3 2 S .W .3 d at 8 0 0 . W e n o te th a t a p a rt y canno tci r cum venta sover ei gn i m m uni t y barby r ecast i ng a br each ofcont r act c la i m a s a U D J A c l a i m . S ee Tex . Na tura l Res . Co n s erva ti

o nCo mm ’

nv. I TD avy , 7 4 S .W .3 d 8 4 9 , 8 5 6 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ); Koch v. Tex. G en. Land O f f i ce , 273 S .W .3 d 4 5 1 , 4 5 5 (T e x . A p p .— A u s ti n 2 0 0 8 , p e t. fil e d ). T h e T ru s t, h o w e v e r, d o e s n o ta s s e rtt h a tT x DOT ’ s i mm u n i t yi swa i v e d u n d e rt h e UD J A.

8 ... See F

ed. Si gn v. Tex. S. Univ. , 9 5 1 S .W .2 d 4 0 1 , 4 0 5 (T e x . 1 9 9 7 ). 9 ... S ee Catal

i na D ev. , I

nc. v. Coun t y of

El Paso , 121 S. W . 3d 704, 705 (T e x . 2 0 0 3 ); G en. Servs . Com m ’ n v. Little- Tex I

ns ul ati on Co. , 39 S . W . 3d 591, 5 9 4 (T e x . 2 0 0 1 ). U n d e r C h a p te r 2 7 1 o f th e L o c a l G o v e rn m e n t C o d e , h o w e v e r, w hen a pr oper l y execut ed and aut hor i zed contr act pr ovi des good s orservi ces t o a lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t , t h e lo c a l g o v e r n m e n tw a iv e s s o v e r e ig n im m u n it yt o s u it 6 T rus t’ s c l a i m s fo r de c l a rati o n s c o n stru i n g the ag ree m e n t. 7 Al t er nat i vel y, t he Tr us t as se rt s t hati tr ai se d a f ac ti ss ue abo utt he exi st enc e o fan ag r ee m entan d t he t r i al court c o u l d not acton T xD O T’ s pl ea t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on w i t hou tf i r st r e s o lv in g t h a tt h r e s h o ld f a c t . T x D O T re s p o n d s t h a ta s a m a t t e ro fla w t h e r e is no c ont r ac tbe t w ee n t he Tr us tan d TxDO T, an d w i t houta con t r ac ts ett l i ng a cl ai m f orw hi ch i m m uni t y i s w ai ved, t her e i s no w ai ver ofi m m uni t y f orbr each o f co n tr a c t. A . A ppl i ca bl e L aw — N o W ai verofI m m unity Fo rM er e Negot i at i ons TxD O T pos se ss esi m m un i t y f r om s ui tan d f r om l i abi l i t y. 8Al t hough a g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t it ylik e T x D O T w a iv e s im m u n it yf r o m lia b ilit yw h e n it con t r ac t s w i t h pr i vat e c i t i z ens , i t s i m m uni t y f r om s ui ti s notw ai ved s ol el y by i ts e n teri n g i n to su c h a c o n tr a c t. 9 Ex press l egi sl at i ve con se nt , i n c l ea ran dfo r th e p u rp o s e o f a d j u d i c a ti n g a c l a i m fo r b re a c h o f th e c o n tra c t. S ee T ex.

L o c . G o v ’t C o d e A n n . § § 2 7 1 .1 5 1 -.1 5 2 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ); Si nger a t 7 9 5 n . 4. C hap t er271 spe ci f i ca l l y e xcl ude s i t s app l i ca t i on t o TxDO T, how eve r , and t he Tr us tha s notar gue d t hatt he cha pt er i s app l i ca bl e. Tex. Loc . G ov’ tCode Ann. § 2 7 1 .1 5 1 (3 ); T e x . G o v ’t C o d e A n n . § 2 2 6 0 .0 0 1 (4 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ).

10 ... S eeT e x . G o v ’t C o d e A n n . § 3 1 1 .0 3 4 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ); T ra vis Coun t y v. Pel

zel & A ssocs. , I

nc. , 7 7 S .W .3 d 2 4 6 , 2 4 8 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ). 11 ... 87 S . W . 3d a t521– 22. 12 ... Id. a t521. 13 ... S ee Si

nger, 232 S. W . 3d a t800. 7 una m bi guous l ang uag e, i s r equ i r ed t o s how t hati m m uni t y f r om a br ea ch of con t r ac ts ui tha s bee n w ai ved . 10 I n La wso n , a pl ur al i t yo f th e Su pr em e C our tofTexas con cl uded t hat
w hen a go ve r nm e nt a l e nt i t y s e t t l e s a c l a i m f or w hi c h i m m un i t y f r om sui thas bee n w ai ved , i m m uni t y f r om su i t i s al so w ai ved f ora br ea ch oft he se t t l em ent a g ree m e n t. 11 T h e p l u ra l i tyre a s o n e d th a t “ w h e n a g o v e rn m e n ta l e n ti tyis exposed to s ui tbecause ofa w ai ver of i m m uni t y, i t canno tnul l i f y t hatw ai ver b ys e ttli n g th e c l a i m w i th a n a g re e m e n t o n w h i c h i t c a n n o t b e s u e d .” 12 Fol l ow i ng t he La wso npl ur al i t y’ s r ea so ni ng, t hi s cou rthe l d i n Si nger t hat so v e rei g n i m m u n i ty d o e s n o t ba r a b rea c h o f co n tr a c t cl a i m ag a ins t a g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t it yw h e r e t h e c o n t r a c ta tis s u e s e t t le s a n e m in e n td o m a in c l a i m. 13 I n em i nen t dom ai n ac t i ons , a l and ow ner hasa con st i t ut i ona l cl ai m f or14 ... T e x . C o n s t. a rt. I , § 1 7 ; Si nger, 232 S. W . 3d a t796. 15 ... Si nger, 232 S. W . 3d a t796. 16 ... See i

d. a t798. 17 ... Westga te, Ltd. v. S tate , 843 S. W . 2d 448 , 452 ( Tex. 1992 ) ( quot i ng Sta tev. Vaughan , 3 1 9 S. W . 2d 349, 354 ( Tex. Ci v. A pp. — A us t i n 1958, no w ri t) ( “[T ]he co n d e m n a ti o n m a yb e co m p lete l yab a n d o n e d an d the p rop e rt y n e v e r ta k e n .” )). 8 ade qua t e c om pen sa t i on a gai ns tt he con dem nor , and ther e i s no s ove r ei gn im m u n it y a g a in s t s u c h c la im . 14W e r ea so ned i n Si nger t hat , j us tasi n La wso n , a g ove r nm ent al en t i t y c ann otcl ai m i m m uni t y f r om a l and ow ner ’ s cl ai m f or ade qua t e c om pen sa t i on un derart i cl e I , s ec t i on 1 7 oft he Texa s C ons t i t ut i on, by c ont r ac t i ng t o pur cha set he pr ope rt y f ora publ i c p ur pos e b ef or e i ni t i at i ng em i nent dom ai n pr oceedi ngs. 15 W e recogni zed that“[ a] n agr eem entt o conv ey pr oper t y t o a gover nm ent al aut hor i t y f ora publ i c pur pose has t he sam e ef f ect a s a fo rm a l c o n d e m n a ti o n p ro c e e d i n g .” 16 U nd er Te xasl aw , how eve r , m er e n ego t i at i ons f ort he pur cha seof pr ope rt y t hatdo n otr es ul ti n t he f or m at i on ofa con t r ac tdo n otaf f or d t he ow ner th e r i ght t o r ecoverdam ages f r om t he S t at e, “because t her e has been n e i th e r a ta k i n g o r a n yc h a ra c te r o f a p h y s i c a l i n v a s i o n o fth e p ro p e rty .” 17 G o v e rn m e n t a c t io n d o e s n o t g iv e ris e to a c a u s e o f a c tio n u n d e r a rt ic le I, s e c ti o n 1 7 , “in th e a b s e n c e o f a c u r r e n t , d i re c t re s tri c ti o n o n th e p ro p e rty ’s18 ... Westga te , 843 S. W . 2d a t452. 19 ... S ee T e x . P ro p . C o d e A n n . § 2 1 .0 1 2 (a ), (b )(4 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 20 ... The d i ss enti n Si nger co nc l ud ed t hatbe ca us e t he con t r ac tati ss ue w a s n o t a s e ttle m e n ta g re e m e n t, “ La wso ncl ea r l y ha s no a ppl i ca t i on t o t he f act s of[ t he] case. ” Si nger, 2 3 2 S .W .3 d a t 8 0 1 (C a y c e , C .J ., d i s s e n ti n g ). 21 ... Schl

um ber ger Tech. Cor

p. v. Swans on , 959 S . W . 2d 171, 178 ( Tex. 1 9 9 7 ); W

i l l i am s v. Gl

ash , 7 8 9 S .W .2 d 2 6 1 , 2 6 4 (T e x . 1 9 9 0 ). 22 ... Hub b a rd

v. Sh a n kle , 1 3 8 S .W .3 d 4 7 4 , 4 8 1 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 4 , p e t. d e n i e d ). 9 u s e .” 18Thus , w hi l e n ego t i at i ons ar e a s t at ut or i l y- m and at ed pr er equ i si t e t o f i l i ng a c o n d e m n a t io n a c t io n , t h e m e r e f a c tt h a ta g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t it ye n g a g e s in such nego t i at i ons does not, w i t hou tm or e, t r i ggera w ai v e r ofgover nm ent al i m m un i t y un de ra rt i c l e I , s e c t i on 17. 19Accor di ngl y, t o e st abl i sh a w ai verof i m m uni t y f ora br ea ch ofco nt r ac tc l ai m pr edi ca t ed on a n und er l yi ng e m i nen t dom ai n act i on, a part y m ustest abl i sh t he exi st ence ofan agr eem entby w hi ch a gover nm ent al ent i t y contr act ed t o acqui r e pr oper t y f ora publ i c pur pose. 20 S e ttl e m e n tagr eem ent s ar e gover ned byt he l aw ofcont r act s. 21 U n d e r Tex as l aw , t he r equi r em ent s of a contr actare: ( 1) an of f er ; ( 2) an accept ance i n s t r i c tc om pl i a nc e w i t h t he t e r m s of t he of f e r ; ( 3) a m e e t i ng of t hem i nd s ; ( 4) ea ch part y’ s con se ntt o t he t er m s; an d (5) ex ec ut i on a nd de l i very oft he con t r ac tw i t h t he i nt ent t hati tbe m ut ual an d bi ndi ng. 22“[ A ] n accept ance m ust23 ... Gasm ar k, Ltd. v. Ki

m bal l Ener gy Cor p. , 868 S. W . 2d 925 , 928 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 4 , n o w ri t); se e a l soM Trus tCor

p. N. A . v. LJHCor

p. , 8 3 7 S .W .2 d 2 5 0 , 2 5 4 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 2 , w ri t d e n i e d ).

24 ... Ga sm a rk , 8 6 8 S .W .2 d a t 9 2 8 ; M Trus tCor p. , 837 S. W . 2d a t254. 25 ... S e eGa sm a rk , 868 S. W . 2d a t928; M Trus tCo r p. , 83 7 S . W . 2d at 254. 10 b e i d e n ti c a l w i th th e o ffe r to m a k e a b i n d i n g c o n tra c t.” 23I ft hea c c e pt ance m odi f i est he t er m s ofan of f er , t her e i s no a gr ee m entbe ca us e t he m odi f i ca t i on c o n s ti tu te s a c o u n te ro ffe r. 24 B . N o S e ttl e m e n t A g ree m e n t— N o W a i v e r of I m m u n i ty H er e, TxD O T m adean of f ert o t he Tr us tt o pur cha seal l i nt er es t s i n t he Pr ope rt y f or$293 , 300 . The off erdi r ec t ed t he Tr us tt o ne got i at e w i t h a ny l esseesori nt er estow ner s i n t he Pr oper t y. Th e Trust ’ s pur por t ed accept ance m o d if ie d t h is o f f e rin t w o re s p e c t s a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e w a s n e it h e ra v a lid accept ance nora m eet i ng of t he m i nds. 25 Fi r st , al t hough TxD O T of f er ed t o pur cha set he Pr ope rt y w i t houtan y qual i f i cat i on, t he T r ust ’ s r esponse st at ed t hatt he T r ust ’ s “accept ance” appl i ed onl y t o “t he Trust ’ s i nt er est i n t he Pr oper t y al one, excl usi ve o f an yo th er i n t e r e s t s i n t h e P r o p e rt y . ” S e c o n d , a l t h o ug h t h e o f f e re x p l a i n e d t h a tT x DOT exp ec t ed t he Tr us tto neg ot i at e w i t h l es se esr ega r di ng t hei ri nt er es t s i n t he P r o p e rt y , t h e Tr u s td e c l i n e d t o n e g o t i a t e wi t h l e s s e e s a n d i n d i c a t e d t h a tT x DOT26 ... S e eGa sm a rk , 8 6 8 S .W .2 d a t 9 2 8 ; M Trus tCor p. , 837 S. W . 2d a t254 (m a te ri a l m o d i fi c a ti o n o f th e te rm s o f a n o ffe r c o n s ti tu te s a c o u n te ro ffe r).

27 ... S ee Si

nger, 232 S. W . 3d a t798. 11 w oul d ha ve t o a cqu i r e l ea se hol d i nt er es t s i n t he Pr ope rt y on i t s ow n. Thus , t he r es ponse prop os ed m odi f i ca t i ons t o bot h t he sc ope oft he pr ope rt y t o be pur cha se d a nd t he t er m s by w hi ch l es se es ’ i nt er es t s i n t he Pr ope rt y w oul d be neg ot i at ed. Beca us e t he Tr us t ’ s r es pons e t o TxDO T’ s of f er pr opos ed m odi f i ca t i ons oft he sc ope oft he i nt er es tt hatTxD O T so ughtt o a cqu i r e a nd t he t erm s f or d e a l i n g w i th l e s s e e s , th e “ a c c e p ta n c e ” w a s a c tu a l l ya c o u n te ro ffe r. 26 T h e part i esne verr ea che d a ny a gr ee m entr ega r di ng t he Tr us t ’ s cou nt er off eran d, consequ ent l y, as a m at t erofl aw no contr actw as f or m ed. A bsenta cont r act se t t l i ng a cl ai m f orw hi ch i m m uni t y w asw ai ved , t her e w asno w ai verof TxD O T’ s i m m uni t y a gai ns tt he Tr us t ’ s dec l ar at or y j udgm entac t i on. 27 The t r i al cou rt , t her ef or e, di d noter ri n gr ant i ng TxDO T’ s pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on.12 I V . Concl us i on Fort he f or ego i ng r ea so ns , w e a f f i r m t he t r i al co ur t ’ s or dergr ant i ng TxD O T’ s pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on.

J OHN CAYCE CHI E FJ UST I CE PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d W A LKER, JJ. LI V I N G STO N , J. f i l ed a c onc ur r i ng op i ni on. DEL I VERE D: J ul y 30, 2009

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 33 7- CV

AR L O L . S CH R I VE R AS T R US T E E AP P E L L ANT O F THE SCHRI VER F AM I L Y TRUST V . TH E TEXA S D EPA RTM EN T O F A PPELL EE T R ANS P OR T AT I ON

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 1 41ST DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### CONCURRI NG OPI NI ON

----- ----- -- I co ncu rw i t h t he m aj or i t y’ s con cl us i on t hatasa m at t erofl aw , t he part i es t o t hi s ca sedi d noten t eran y c ont r ac t , an d t he pr ec ede nt s oft he supr em e courtand our cour tr el at ed t o agr eem ent s sett l i ng i m m uni t y- w ai ved c l a i m s d o n o t th e re fo re a p p l y . See Tex. A & MUniv. -Ki ngs vi l le v. La wso n , 87 S .W .3 d 5 1 8 , 5 2 2

– 2 3 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ); Cit y of Car rol lton v. Si

nger, 232 S. W . 3d1 ... Ci t i ng La wso n , t he Tr us tha s ar gue d t hatw e c ann otco ns i dert he

val i di t y oft he part i es ’ co nt r ac ti n m ak i ng ou rde ci si on i n t hi s ca se . I n La wso n , t he su pr em e c ourts t at ed t hati tw oul d notco ns i derw het hera se t t l em ent agr eem entw as voi d because of t he post ur e of t hatcase, i n w hi ch no evi dence o r a rgu m e n t o n th e v a l i d i ty o f t h e ag ree m e n t ha d b e e n o ffered i n the tr i a l co u rt . La wso n , 87 S. W . 3d at52 3. H e re, t he part i es pr ovi ded evi dence i n t he t r i al cou rtoft hei rw r i t t en com m uni ca t i ons w i t h ea ch ot her , and t heyar gue d a bout t h e c o m p l e t i o n o ft h e i rc o n t r a c tn e g o t i a t i o n s . Al s o , t h e r e i s a n o b vi ous di f f er ence bet w een consi der at i on i n an i nt er l ocutory a p p e a l o fw het heran u n d i sp u ted l y c o m p le te d a g ree m e n t isvo id f orr ea so ns unr el at ed t o t he agr ee m ent ’ s f or m at i on, asw ast he i ss ue i n La wso n , an d w het herther e i s even a nagreem en t to b egi nwitht hatco ul d be s ubj ec tt o La wso n ’sa n a l y s is , a s is th e c a s e h e re . See i d. 2 7 9 0 , 7 9 9

– 8 0 0 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 7 , p e t. d e n i e d ). 1 H o w e v e r, I w ri te s e p a r a t e lyt o e x p a n d u p o n s o m e o ft h e s t a t e m e n t s m a d e b yt h e m a jo r it yin r eachi ng i t s de ci si on and t o opi ne t hati ft he part i es i n t hi s case had enter ed i n to a v a l i d c o n tra c t, T x D O T ’s i m m u n i tyw o u l d b e w a i v e d u n d e r Si nger . The m aj or i t y st at est hati m m uni t y f r om s ui ti s notw ai ved s ol el y bya gove r nm ent ent i t y’ s ent er i ng i nt o a co nt r ac tw i t h a pr i vat e c i t i z en. M aj or i t y op . at6. W hi l e t hatl ega l pr i nci pl e m ay be t r ue i n s om e c i r cum st anc es , i ti s not t r ue i n ot her s. The m aj or i t y a ck now l edg est hati m m uni t y canbe w ai ved by ent e r i ng a c on t r a c tw he r e t heg ov e r nm e nti s n oti m m un e f r om t hec l a i m t hat th e c o n tra c t s e ttles . See L awso n , 8 7 S .W .3 d a t 5 2 2

– 2 3 ; Si nger, 232 S. W . 3d a t7 9 9

– 8 0 0 . F u rt h e r m o r e , a c o n d i t io n p r e c e d e n tt o e m in e n td o m a in pr oce edi ngs — gove r nm ent al att em pt s t o s et t l e— w asoccur r i ng att he t i m e o f2 ... H er e, H al f f A ssoci at es, Tx D O T’ s agent i n t he cond em nat i on pr ocess,

se ntt he Tr us ta l et t ers t at i ng t hati t s pr ope rt y w as“ r equ i r ed f ort he const r uct i on” ofStat e H i ghw ay 12 1. H al f fA ssoci at es descr i bed i t s l et t eras a “ s t a g e o ft h e p u r c h a s e p r o c e s s ” a n d t h e n re f e r e n c e d e m in e n td o m a in pr oceedi ngs. I n a l ater letter , H al f fA ssoci at es r ecogn i zed t hati tw as a tte m p ti n g to a c q u i re a ri g h t-o f-w a y“ u n d e r th e th re a t o f c o n d e m n a ti o n .” 3 t he c om pl et ed se t t l em ent( i n Si nger) an d at t he t i m e t he pa rt i es w e re e x c h a n g i n g c o n fl i c ti n g s e ttlem e n t p ro p o s a l s (i n th i s c a s e ). 2 S ee Si nger, 232 S. W . 3d at797 ( des cr i bi ng t hat“ a g enu i ne ef f ortt o pur cha set he l and by agr ee m entbe t w ee n t he part i es , an d t he f ai l ur e t o do so , i s a c ondi t i on p re c e d e n t to i n s ti tu ti n g e m i n e n t d o m a i n p ro c e e d i n g s ” ); s e ea l so T ex. Pr op. C ode A nn. § 21. 012 ( b) ( 4) ( V er non Supp. 2 008 ) ( di ct at i ng t hata con dem nat i on pet i t i on m ay be f i l ed onl y af t ert he gove r nm ent ’ s f ai l ur e t o r ea ch an agr ee m ent w i t h a l ando w ner ) . Th us, I r ei t er at e t hathad t he part i es t o t hi s sui tcom pl et ed th e i r statu to ri l yreq u i red se ttl e m e n t ne goti at i ons and properl yform e d a c o n tr a c t, t hus avoi di ng T x D O T ’sl i abi l i t y i n an em i nent dom ai n pr oceedi ng f orw hi ch i m m uni t y i s w ai ved, TxD O T w oul d have no i m m uni t y f ora br each o f t hat con t r ac t , j us tast he C i t y ofCar r ol l t on ha d no i m m uni t y f or a s ui tcl ai m i ng a br ea ch ofi t s agr ee m enti n Si nger .4

H a v i n g e x p re s s e d th e s e c o n c e rn s a b o u t th e m a j o r it y ’s o p i n i o n , I res p e c tful l yco n c u r bu t oth e rw i se j o i n i n i ts o p i n i o n an d j u d g m e n t.

T E R R I E L I VI NGS T ON J U S T I C E DEL I VERE D: J ul y 30, 2009