1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 0 2 - 0 8 - 1 5 6 - CV
DAL L AS AR E A R AP I D T R ANS I T AP P E L L ANT V . A G EN T SY STEM S, I N C . A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 236TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on A ppel l antD al l as A r ea Rap i d T r ansi t ( D A R T) appeal s t he deni al ofi t s pl ea t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on, com pl ai ni ng t hat t he t r i al cour tdi d not have subj ectm at t er j u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r c l a i m s b ro u g h t b yA p p e l l e e A g e n t S y s te m s , I n c . (A g e n t). W e
r eve r se an d r em and .2 ... The p art i es ’ co nt r ac tco nt ai ns di f f er ent pr ovi si ons t hat gove r n i n t he

e v e n t o f a te rm i n a ti o n fo r c o n v e n i e n c e o r a te rm i n a ti o n fo r d e fa u l t. U n d e r a t er m i nat i on f orco nve ni enc e, t he con t r ac t orm us tbe pa i d i t s cos t s, i n c l u d i ng con t r ac tcl os e- outco st s, an d pr of i ton w or k p er f or m ed up t o t he t i m e o f t er m i nat i on. U ndera t er m i nat i on f ordef aul t , ho w e ver , A gent w oul d r ecover onl yt h e c o n t r a c tp r i c e f o rc o n f o r mi n g g o o d s , ma t e r i a l s , o rs u p p l i e s d e l i v e r ed and ac ce pt ed or t he ac t ual val ue of w or k com pl et ed ors er vi ce s per f or m ed up t o t he t i m e o ft er m i nat i on. 2 II . F a c tu a la n d P ro c e d u ra lH i s to ry A gen tha d a co nt r a ctw i t h DA RT and t he FortW ort h Tr ans port at i on A ut hor i t y ( t he T) t o suppl y f ar e boxes f ort hei rpubl i c t r anspor t at i on veh i cl es. A f t era di sp ut e a r os e b et w ee n t he part i es , D A R T and t he T t er m i nat ed t he contr actf ordef aul t . Li t i gat i on t hen ensued bet w een t he par t i es overw het her th e term i n a ti o n w a s a c tu a l l yo n e for c o n v e n i e n c e i n ste a d o f f o r de fau l t. 2 A n a dm i ni st r at i ve l a w j u dge f ound t hatt he t er m i nat i on w as f or con ven i enc e, but h e a l so de ni ed A gen tan y a ddi t i ona l pa ym ent s unde rt he
con t r ac t . Agentf i l ed su i t , as se rt i ng c l ai m s f orde cl ar at or y j udgm ent , br ea ch of
con t r ac t , br ea ch of t he i m pl i ed cov ena nt of coo per at i on, ec onom i c dur es s, an d br ea ch oft he dut y ofgo o d fa i th a n d f ai rde al i ng. DA RT f i l ed a m ot i on f or s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t a n d t h e n a p l e a to th e j u ri s d i c ti o n , b o th o f w h i c h w e re de ni e d . Th e d e ni a l o ft he l a t t e rp r om pt e d t hi s i nt e r l oc ut or y a pp e a l b y DA RT. S eeT e x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 5 1 .0 1 4 (a )(8 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ). I I I . St andar d ofRev i ew3

W e re v i e w d e n o v o th e d e n i a l o f a p l e a to th e j u ri s d i c ti o n . S e eT ex . D ep ’t of Par ks& W i ldl if e v. Mi randa , 1 3 3 S .W .3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 6 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ). A p l e a to t he j ur i sd i ct i on i s a d i l at or y pl ea ; i t s pur pos e i s t o de f ea ta ca us e o fac t i on
w i th o u t re g a rd to w h e th e r th e c l a i m s a s s e rte d h a v e m e ri t. Bl and I ndep. Sch. D i st. v. Blue , 34 S . W . 3d 54 7, 55 4 ( Tex . 20 00 ) . Th e pur pose ofa di l at or y pl ea i s not t o f or ce t he pl ai nt i f f t o pr evi ew i t s ca se on t he m er i t s butt o e st abl i sh a re a s o n w h yth e m e ri ts o f th e p l a i n ti ff’s c l a i m s s h o u l d n e v e r b e re a c h e d . Id. A lt h o u g h t h e c la im s m a yf o r m t h e c o n t e x tin w h ic h a p le a t o t h e ju r is d ic t io n is
ra i s e d , th e p l e a s h o u l d b e d e c i d e d w i th o u t d e l v i n g i n to th e c a s e ’s m e ri ts . Id. A c c o r di ngl y, t o de t er m i ne w het herj ur i sd i ct i on e xi st s, w e c ons t r ue t he pl ea di ngs l i b e ra l l y i n fa v o r o f th e p l a i n ti ff a n d l o o k to th e p l e a d e r’s i n te n t. See Mi randa , 133 S . W . 3d a t226. I V . D ecl ar at ory R el i ef I n i t s f i r sti ssue, D A R T ar gues t h a t t he t r i al cour tdi d not have subj ect
m a tte r j u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r A g e n t’s c l a i m fo r d e c l a ra to ry re l i e f b e c a u s e a tto rn e y ’s f ees ar e notot her w i se r ecover abl e by A gent i n i t s cl ai m agai nsta gover nm ent al
e nt i t y s uc h a s DA RT. In i ts fi rs t a m e n d e d p e ti ti o n , A g e n t s o u g h t r e l i e f 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 ) , r equ es t i ng “ t h a t th e C ourtaf f i r m t he age nci es ’ de t er m i nat i on t hatt he at t em pt ed ‘ t er m i nat i on f orde f aul t ’ by3 ... A p l a i n ti ff’s a m e n d e d p e ti ti o n s u p e rs e d e s th e o ri g i n a l p e ti ti o n . S ee

Te x. R. Ci v. P. 65; s eeal so FKMP’

shi p, Ltd. v. B d. o f R eg e n ts of Univ. of Houston S ys. , 25 5 S .W .3 d 61 9, 63 3 ( Tex . 20 08 ) ( st at i ng t hat“[ o] urr ul es pr ovi de t hatam end ed pl ea di ngs an d t hei r c o nt ent s t ak e t he pl ac e o fpr i or p l e a d i n g s ” ). 4 D ef end ant s w as a ‘ t er m i nat i on f orco nve ni enc e’ an d t o f urt her c o ns t r ue t he agr ee m entt o de t er m i ne t he obl i gat i ons of D ef end ant s unde r t he t er m i nat i on f or c o n v e n i e n c e .” 3Agentt hen al so r equ es t ed at t or ney ’ s f ee s and cos t s unde rt he U D J A . S ee Tex . C i v. Pr ac. & R em . C ode A nn. § 37 . 00 9 ( V er non 20 08 ) . U nder t he headi ng “B r each of C ontr act , ” A gent cl ai m ed t hatD A R T h ad not per f or m ed i t s obl i gat i ons und ert he contr actbecause ofi t s “f ai l ur e t o pay f und s due under t he t er m i nat i on cl ai m s ofA gent. ” A cl earr eadi ng of A gent’ s f i r stam ended pet i t i on r eve al s t hatA gen tal l ege d t h a t D A RT br ea che d t he con t r ac tby den om i nat i ng t he t er m i nat i on as one of “d ef aul t ” i ns t ea d of “c onve ni enc e” an d t hen byf ai l i ng t o com pl y w i t h t he “conven i ence” pr ovi si ons. I ti s axi om at i c t hatat t or ney ’ s f ee s ar e r ec ove r abl e o nl y b y s t at ut e o r c o n tra c t. Ho l

l a n d v. W

a l-Ma rt S to res, I

n c ., 1 S. W . 3d 91, 95 ( Tex. 1999 ) . The
con t r ac ti n que st i on do es notal l o w f ort he r ec ove r y ofat t or ney ’ s f ee s, an d
se ct i on 38. 001 oft he ci vi l pr ac t i ce and r em edi es cod e, t he st at ut or y veh i cl e f or re c o v e ryo f a tto rn e y ’s fe e s fo r b re a c h o f c o n tra c t, i s i n a p p l i c a b l e to D A R T . See T e x . C i v . P rac . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 3 8 .0 0 1 ( V e rno n 2 0 0 8 ) (pro v i d i n g tha t a5

p e rs o n m a yre c o v e r a tto rn e y ’s fe e s fro m “ a n i n d i v i d u a l o r c o rp o ra ti o n ” ); D al l as A re a Rap i

d T ra n sit v. Pl

um m er, 84 1 S . W . 2d 87 0, 87 5 ( Tex . A pp. — D al l as 199 2, w r i tde ni ed) ( op. on r eh’ g) ( st at i ng t hatD A RT, asa gove r nm ent al en t i t y, i s n e i th e r a n i n d i v i d u a l n o r a c o rp o ra ti o n ), abroga ted on other grounds by Tex. Edu c. A gency v. Leeper, 8 9 3 S . W . 2 d 4 3 2 (T e x . 1 9 9 5 ); se e a l so Cit y of Ho us to n v. Pe tro le um T ra dersCo rp . , 261 S . W . 3d 350, 360 n. 6 ( Tex. A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.) (ap p l y i n g s a m e ru l e to m u n i c i p a l i ty ). H ence, A gent i s notent i t l ed t o at t or ney’ s f ees unl ess i tcan f i nd ano t herhor se t o r i de. A g e n t a tte m p ts to m o u n t th e U D J A . S ee Tex. Ci v. Pr ac . & Rem . Code A n n . § 3 7 .0 0 9 (p ro v i d i n g th a t a c o u rt m a ya w a rd re a s o n a b l e a n d n e c e s s a ry at t or ney’ s f ees i n a decl ar at or y j udg m entpr oceedi ng) . H ow ever , a part y m ay
n o t u s e s e c ti o n 3 7 .0 0 9 fo r th e s o l e p u rp o s e o f o b ta i n i n g a tto rn e y ’s fe e s . City of Ho us to n v. Texa n L and & Cat tle Co. , 138 S . W . 3d 382, 392 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 14t h Di st . ] 2004 , no p et . ) . M or e sp ec i f i ca l l y, a p art y m ay not use a decl ar at or y j udg m entact i on t o seek th e s a m e r el i efaf f or ded un der
a n o t h e ro fit s c a u s e s o fa c t io n in a n e f f o r t t o o b t a in o t h e r w is e im p e r m is s ib le
a tto rn e y ’s fe e s . Id. ; se e a l so U. S. Bank, N. A . v. Pres ti ge Ford Gar

l and Ltd. P ’sh ip , 17 0 S . W . 3d 27 2, 27 8 ( Tex . A pp. — D al l as 20 05 , no pet . ) ( st at i ng t hat “[ o] r di nar i l y decl ar at or y r el i ef w i l l not be gr ant ed w hen t he cause ofact i on has6

fu l l ym a tu re d a n d i n v o k e s a p re s e n t re m e d ya t l a w ” ); Kenneth L eventhal & Co.
v. Reeves , 978 S. W . 2d 253, 258– 59 ( Te x. App . — Hous t on [ 14t h Di s t . ] 1998 , no pe t . ) ( st at i ng th a t “[ o] nce Reev es pl ea ded br ea ch ofco nt r ac t , he ha d no
n e e d fo r d e c l a ra to ry re l i e f. U n d e r s u c h c i rc u m s ta n c e , a p l e a d i n g fo r d e c l a ra to ry re l i e f w i l l n o t l i e ” ). Furt her m or e, a dec l ar at or y pl ea m ay not be cou pl ed t o a da m age ac t i on s i m p l yi n o rd e r to p a v e th e w a y to re c o v e r a tto rn e y ’s fe e s . C ytogeni x, I nc. v. W a ldroff, 2 1 3 S . W .3 d 4 7 9 , 4 9 0 ( T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 st D i st.] 2 0 0 6 , p e t. d e n i e d ); Hartf

ord Cas. I

ns. v. Bu dget Rent-A
- Car, 796 S . W . 2d 763, 772 ( Tex. A p p. — D al l as 1990 , w r i tde ni ed) . Ther ef or e, i ti s app ar entt hatA ge n t’s d e c l a ra to ryj u d g m e n t th o ro u g h b re d w i l l n o t l e a v e th e s ta rti n g g a te , a s A g e n t’s onl y r ea l pur pos e i s t o obt ai n dam age s t hat an al r ea dy exi st i n g b re a c h of
con t r ac tcl ai m w oul d ent i t l e i t t o and t o obt ai n a t t or ney ’ s f ee s t o w hi ch i ti s not ot her w i se ent i t l ed. W e sust ai n D A R T’ s f i r sti ssue. V . B r e a c h o fC o n t r a c tC la im I n i t s secon d iss ue, D A R T assert s t hatt he t r i al cour tl acked subj ect
m at t erj ur i sdi ct i on ov erA gent’ s br each of contr act cl ai m . H ow ever , t he par t i es’
c o n tr a c t an d A g e n t’ s fi rst am e n d e d p e ti ti o n d i sp e l this arg u m e n t. I n i t s f i r stam ended pet i t i on, A gent assert ed a cl ai m undersubchapter 271 oft he l oca l gov er n m e n t c o d e w hen i ts t at ed t hats ec t i ons 271. 151 an d4 ... G o v e rnm e n tal i m m u n i ty h a s tw o c o m p o n e n ts: i m m u n i ty fr o m l i a b i l i ty

a n d i m m u n i tyfro m s u i t. T o o k ev. Cit yo f

Mexia , 197 S . W . 3d 325 , 332 ( Tex. 2 0 0 6 ). Im m u n i ty fro m s u i t b a rs s u i t a g a i n s t th e e n ti tya l to g e th e r. Id . W hen a g ove r nm ent al en t i t y ent er s i nt o a co nt r ac t , t haten t i t y w ai vesi m m uni t y f r om l i a b i l i ty a n d v o l u n ta ri l y b i n d s i ts e l f, j u s t a s a n y o th e r p a rty w o u l d , to th e te rm s o f th e c o n tra c t, b u t th a t e n ti tyd o e s n o t th e re b yw a i v e i m m u n i tyfro m s u i t. Id . F o r t h e re to b e a w a i v e r of i m m u n i ty fro m su i t in t h e c o n tr a c t- c l a i m co n tex t, t he l egi sl at ur e m us tha ve w ai ved i m m uni t y f r om su i tast o t he cl ai m i n que st i on b yc l e a r a n d u n a m b i g u o u s l a n g u a g e . S eeTe x. Gov ’ tCode A nn . § 31 1. 034 ( V er non S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ) ( pr ovi di ng t hata st at ut e shal l notbe const r ued as a w ai ver o f s o v er ei gn i m m uni t y un l es s t he w ai veri s ef f ec t ed by c l ea ran d u n a m b i g u o u s l a n g u a g e ); To oke , 197 S . W . 3d at332– 33 ( r equ i r i ng c l ea ran d una m bi guous l ang uag e t o w ai ve gove r nm ent al i m m uni t y) . Sec t i on 271. 152 of t he l oca l gov er nm entco de con t ai ns an ex pr es s w ai ver of i m m uni t y f r om s ui tf or s o m e c o n tra c t c l a i m s . See Clea r La keCit y W ater A uth. v. Fr

i end swood Dev. Co ., 256 S. W . 3d 735, 746– 47, 751 ( Te x. App . — Hous t on [ 14t h Di s t . ] 2008 , p e t. fi l e d ) (h o l d i n g th a t c o n tra c t to p ro v i d e s e rv i c e s fe l l u n d e r s u b c h a p te r 2 7 1 ). 7 2 7 1 .1 5 2 o f t h e l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t co d e p rov i d e a w a i v e r of i m m u n i ty w i th
r e g a r d t o it s b r e a c h o fc o n t r a c tc la im . T h e s e s e c t io n s , w h ic h a p p ly
r e t r o a c t iv e ly , w a iv e a “ lo c a l g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t it y ’s ” s o v e r e ig n im m u n it y t o s u it f orco nt r ac t s ent er ed f or goods and se r vi ce s— “l oca l gove r nm ent al ent i t y” i s t he
very st at us upon w hi ch D A RT r es t s i t s pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on. 4 S ee Tex . Loc. 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 ); Pa ul a Co n str. , I

n c . v. City
o f L y tle , 220 S . W . 3d 16, 18–1 9 ( Tex. A pp. — San A nt oni o 200 6, no pe t . ) ( op. o n re h ’g ) (a p p l y i n g s e c ti o n 2 7 1 .1 5 1 re tro a c ti v e l y ); se e a ls o B e n Bo lt-Pa l ito Bl anc o Conso l. I

ndep. Sch. D i

st. v. Tex. Pol

iti ca l Subdivi

si ons Prop. /

Cas . Joi nt Self

-I ns . Fun d, 2 1 2 S .W .3 d 3 2 0 , 3 2 8 (T e x . 2 0 0 6 ) (a p p l y i n g s e c ti o n 2 7 1 .1 5 2 ’s8

st at ut or y w ai vert o i nsur ance cl ai m di sput e) . I ti s undi sput ed t hatt he contr act ati ss ue her e s t at ed al l e s s e n ti a l ter m s, i nvol ved t he pr ovi si on ofgood s or s e rv i c e s , a n d w a s p ro p e rl ye x e c u te d b yD A R T . S ee Tex. Loc . G ov’ tCode Ann. § 2 7 1 .1 5 1 . I n s t e a d , D A R T arg u e s th a t be c a u se the co n tr a c tu a l d i sp u te
r es ol ut i on pr oce dur es do n ot con f l i ctw i t h s ubc hap t er271, i t s i m m uni t y i s not
w a iv e d . In lig h to f t h e c o n t r a c t ’s la n g u a g e , h o w e v e r , t h is a r g u m e n tm u s tf a il. I n t he p a rti es ’ co nt r ac t , s ec t i on 13( b) oft he FortW ort h Tr ans port at i on A ut hor i t y G e n e ra l T e rm s a n d C o n d itio ns, t i t l ed “C ontr act D i sput es/ Breaches/ D am ages, ” st at es [ b] y subm i ssi on of a bi d, pr opo sal , of f er , orquotat i on i n r esponse to this so l i c i tati o n , th e C o n tr a c to r or o ffero r ag ree s to e x h a u st i ts a d m i n i s tra ti v e re m e d i e s u n d e r C h a p te r 1 0 o f th e A u th o ri ty ’s Pr ocu r em entRegul at i ons ort he D i sp ut es Cl aus e o f a n y r es ul t i ng c o n tr a c t p ri

o r to se eki

ngj u d i ci a l rel i e f of a n y t ype i n c onne ct i on w i t h a ny m at t err el at ed t o th i s s o l i ci t at i on, t he aw ar d ofan y c o n t r a c t , a n d a n yd is p u t e u n d e ra n yre s u lt in g c o n t r a c t . [ E m p h a s is a d d e d .] D A RT poi nt s t o Rul e o f Pr ac t i ce 28 of t he T’ s r egu l at i ons unde rw hi ch t he contr actw as f or m ed, w hi ch st at es t hat“[ s] ubj ectonl y t o r econsi der at i on un der Rul e 29, t he dec i si ons w i l l be f i nal and not su bj ec t t o r evi ew orm odi f i ca t i on by th e A u th o ri ty’s E x e c u ti v e C o m m it t e e .” H o w e v e r, the sa m e rul e g o e s o n to
s ta te that“ [ t ] he f ai l ur e t o f i l e a m ot i on f orr ec ons i der at i on shal l notbe an i mpedi m ent to either appel l ant or respondent seeki ng j udici al re view ofan5 ... W e ne e d no t a dd r e s s Age nt ’ s c on t e nt i on t ha tb y c on t r a c t i ng , DA RT

w a i ve d i t s i m m un i t y un de rt he “ s ue a nd b e s ue d” l a ng ua ge u nd e rc ha pt e r452 o f th e tra n s p o rta ti o n c o d e . S e e, e . g . , Me tro . T ra n sitA u th . v. M. E. B. , E ng ’ g, I nc ., 2 0 1 S .W .3 d 6 9 2 , 6 9 2

– 9 3 (T e x . 2 0 0 6 ) (a p p ly in g s im ila r p r o v is io n t o h o ld th a t th e re w a s n o w a i v e r); To oke , 197 S. W . 3d a t341– 42. 9 A dm i ni st r at i ve Judg e’ s dec i si on unde rt he st and ar d ofr evi ew pe r m i t t ed by t he D i s p u te s C l a u s e .” Becau se t he contr acti n quest i on do es notpr ohi bi tsubsequent j udi ci al
r el i ef , an d be ca us e t he con t r ac ti t se l f app ea r s t o f al l unde r su bch apt er271 of th e l o c a l g o v e rnm e n t c o d e , w e n e e d n o t ad d res s D A R T ’s rem a i n i n g arg u m e n ts und er th is is s u e. 5 S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 47. 1. W e o ver r ul e DA RT’ s se con d i ssue. V I . T o rtC l a i ms I n i t s th i r d i ssue, D A R T assert s t hatt he t r i al cour tdi d not have subj ect
m a tter j u ri sd i c ti o n o v e r A g e n t’ s to rtclai m s. D A R T i s c o rr e c t. A gover nm ent al uni ti s i m m une f r om t or t l i abi l i t y unl ess t he l egi sl at ur e has
w a i v e d i m m u n i ty . Cit y of FortWorth v. Pastusek I ndus. , I nc. , 48 S . W . 3d 366, 37 2 ( Tex . A pp. — For tW or t h 2 00 1, no pet . ) . The T exas TortC l aim s A ct (T T C A ) p r o v id e s f o ra lim it e d w a iv e r o f g o v e r n m e n t a l im m u n it yin s p e c if ic6 ... S e c ti o n 1 0 1 .0 2 1 p ro v i d e s th a t a g o v e rn m e n ta l u n i t i s l i a b l e fo r:

( 1) pr oper t y dam age, per sonal i nj ur y, and deat h pr oxi m at el y caused by t he w r ong f ul actorom i ssi on or t he negl i gence of an em pl oyee a c ti n g w i th i n h i s s c o p e o f em p l o y m e n t i f: ( A ) t he pr ope rt y da m age , per so nal i nj ur y, or dea t h a r i se s f r om t he oper at i on oruse ofa m ot or - dr i ven vehi cl e orm ot or - dr i ven equ i pm ent ; a nd ( B) t he em pl oye e w oul d be per so nal l y l i abl e t o th e cl ai m ant ac cor di ng t o Tex as l aw ; an d ( 2) pe r so nal i nj ur y a nd dea th s o ca us ed by a co ndi t i on orus e o f t ang i bl e p er so nal orre a l pr ope rt y i ft he gove r nm ent al uni tw oul d, w e re i t a p ri v a te p e rso n , b e l i a b l e to th e clai m a n t a c c o r d in g to T e x a s l a w . T e x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 1 0 1 .0 2 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ). 10 ci r cum st anc es , an d t he ext ent of t he w ai ver of i m m uni t y i s se touti n s ec t i on 1 0 1 . 0 2 1 o ft h e T T CA . 6 Id. A gent’ s t or t causes of act i on do no tf al l w i t hi n t he T TC A ’ s l i m i t ed w ai ver ofi m m uni t y, s o Agentca n a ss ertt hes e c l ai m s aga i ns tD A RT onl y i ft he l e g i s l a tu re h a s e x p re s s l y g ra n te d c o n s e n t to s u e . See Tex. D ep’t of Transp. v. Jo nes , 8 S .W .3 d 6 3 6 , 6 3 8 (T e x . 1 9 9 9 ). N e i th e r th e re c o rd n o r A g e n t’s pl eadi ngs dem onst r at e t hatt he l egi sl at ur e has gi ven con sentt o sui ton t hese
c l a i m s . See i

d. (st a ti n g thata part y c an es t abl i sh co ns entby r ef er enc e t o a st at ut e ort o expr ess l egi sl ativ e p e rm i ssi on) . Ther ef or e, t he t r i al cour tl acks11

s u b j e c t m a tte r j u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r th e to rt c l a i m s . S e e id. Acc o r d i n g l y , we sust ai n D A R T’ s t hi r d i ssue. V I I . Concl us i on H a v i n g su sta i n e d D A R T ’s fi rst an d thir d i ss u e s a n d h a v i n g o v e rr u l e d i ts second i ssue, w e r ever se and r em and t he j udg m entof t he t r i al cour tf orf urt her pr oce edi ngs co ns i st entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.
B OB M CC OY J U S T I C E PA N EL: LI V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d M C C O Y, JJ. LI V I N G STO N , J. co ncu r s w i t houtopi ni on. DEL I VERE D: Nov e m be r20, 2008