NO. 07-06 -028 4-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B FEB RU ARY28, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ ROBERT CONW AY, APPEL LANT

V. RI CH AR D THOM PSON , ET A L., APPEL LEES

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 87 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF A NDE RS ON COU NT Y; TH NO . 999 1; H ON ORABLE DE BORAH OAK ES E VAN S, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Ap pe l l an t R ob er

t C on w ay

a pp ea l s from t he t r i al co ur t’ s orde r di s mi s s i ng hi s c l ai ms w ith prejud ice pursua nt to a plea to the jurisdiction . W e reverse the dism issal. Back g ro und Con w ay , a pr is on i nmate, filed a pr o s e and in form a pa upe ris suit against Rob ert Thompson I II, M arti na C ordel l and Lesl ie Ha z lewood, employ ees of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. H e al leg ed th e defendants w ro ng fully co nfisc ated his co w boy boot sC onw ay ’s su itw as dis mis sed tw ic e before
. See C onway v . T hom pson, N o. 06 -0 4- 1 000 72-CV, 2 005 W L 548 897 (T ex.App. –T exarkana March 10, 2 005 , no p et.) (me m. op.); Con way v

. T hom pson, N o. 12 -0 3- 0422- CV , 200 4 W L 58387 8 (Tex .App. –Ty ler March 24, 200 4, no pet. ) ( me m. op.). W e find Con w ay ’s first appel lat e i ss ue to be d is posi ti v e of the appeal and do not 2 reach his remain ing i ssues. W e no te, h owev er, tha t app ellees co nced e t h e t ria l court’s dis mis sal sh oul d hav e been w it hout preju dic e. 2 and b ro ke h is word proces sor . H is pl eadi ng s p lac ed a “t ang ibl e” v alu e of $270 o n the 1 w ord proce ssor and $12 5 on the bo ots. After answ er ing the sui t, appel lee s f il ed a ple a to the jur is dicti on, a ss erti ng C onw ay had fail ed to pl ead actual damages abov e the distr ict cour t’ s mini mum jur is dicti onal l imi t. Theya rgu e d thatmin imum j ur is dicti onal l imi t i s $ 500. The tr ial co urt ag re ed, a nd dis mis sed Con w ay ’s su it
. He appeal ed, a n d the appeal l ater w as transfer re d from t he Tw elfth C our

t of Appea ls to thi s C our t. Ana ly sis T hrou gh fo ur point s of error, Co n wa y co nte nds th e trial court erred when it dis mis sed his l aw sui t bas ed on appel lee s’ pl ea to the jur is dicti on, e rred w hen i t di smi ss ed his peti ti on w it h prej udi ce, erred w hen i t di smi ss ed hi s s uitw it hout noti ce and er re d w hen 2 itre f u s e d t o m a k e f in d in gs o f fa c ta n d co n c lu s io n s o f la w. Standa rd

of Rev iew In hi s a rg uments to thi s C our t, Con w ay

appears t o urg e an abuse of dis creti on re view. How ev er , w e rev iew a t ri al cour

t’ s g ra nti ng of a pl ea to the jur is dicti on de nov o.Appel lee s mak e no sug g est ion of a s ham pl eadi ng here. 3 3 Ma yhew v. Town o f Su nnyv ale , 964 S.W .2d 9 22, 9 28 ( Tex . 199 8) , cer t. denied, 526 U. S. 1144, 119 S. Ct. 201 8, 14 3 L.E d.2d 1030 ( 1999) ; Levatte v . Cit y o f Wichita F

all s, 144 S.W .3d 218, 222 (Tex .App. –For t W orth 2004, no pet .)
. W e w il l appl y a de n ovo stand ard of rev iew to the t ri al cour

t’ s d is mis sal of Con w ay ’s su it
. Minim umAm oun t in Controve rsy W hen a defend antassert s t h a tt h e am oun t in contro v ersyis below the cou rt's jur is dicti onal l imi t, the p lai nti ff 's pl eadi ng s a re dete rmi nati v e unl ess the defendant spec ific all y

al leg es that the a moun t w as ple aded merely as a s ham for t he pur pose of w rongf ully obt aining jurisdiction, or the def end ant can readily esta blish tha t the amo untin cont ro v ersy

i s i nsuffici ent. Bl

and In d e p e n dent Scho ol Di st. v. Blue, 34 S .W .3d 5 47, 5 54 (Te x . 200 0). The phrase “a mount i n c ontrov ersy ,” i n the j ur is dicti onal co ntext, means t he

3 sum of money

or the v alu e of the thi ng or ig ina ll y su ed for. T

u n e v. Te x. Dep’

t of Pu blic Saf ety, 23 S .W .3d 3 58, 3 61 ( Tex . 2 0 0 0 ). Con w ay or ig ina ll y

su ed for damag es and alt er nati v ely

req uest ed th e retur n of hi s c ow boy boot s, w hic h he v alu ed at $125, and t he re p a ir o r r e p la c e m e n to f

h is wo rd p ro c e s s o r, wh ic h h e va lu e d a t$ 2 7 0
. W h e t h e r we cons ide r Con w ay ’s su itas one se e kin g d amag es or for o ther

reli ef, w e ag re e w it h appel lee s t hat t he amounti n c ontrov ersy , for our pur pose here, i s $ 395.
Con w ay and appel lee s a ck now led g e the di ffer ing opi nio ns among the cour ts of appeal s w it h reg ard to the mi nimum a mount i n c ontrov ersy cur re ntl y re q uired to i nv oke theSee als o Ar nold v . West B end C o. , 983 S.W .2d 365, 366 n. 1 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on 4 [ 1 D i s t
. ] 1 9 98, n o pet .)
. But see 1 W il li am V. Dorsaneo II I, Tex as Lit iga ti on Gu ide § st 2.01[ 3][b] [ii] ( 2007) ( opi nin g thatthe “mos t s ensi ble co ncl usi on” i s t hat mi nimum jurisdictiona l amo untrema ins $50 0). C onw ay als o ple ad for puni ti v e damag es and ot her reli ef. W e need not c onsi der 5 w hether hi s d oin g so affect ed th e di str ict c our t’ s j ur is dicti on. 4 jur is dicti on of a di str ict c our t. Com par e Chapa v

. Sp iv ey, 999 S .W .2 d 8 3 3, 83 5- 36 (Tex .App. –Ty ler

1999, no pet.) (mini mum jur is dicti onal amount is st il l $500) w it h Ar teaga v. Jacks on , 994 S.W .2d 342 (Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 1999, pet. deni ed) ( as re sul t of 1985 cons ti tuti onal and s tatut or y amendments , mi nimum j ur is dicti onal amount w as re duced to $200.01 ). O ur

Supreme C our

t has tak en not e of the q uest ion but has not had oc cas ion 4 to res olv e i t. See , e.g. , Duba i Petr. Co. v. Kaz i, 12 S.W .3d 71, 7 5 n.4 ( Tex . 200 0) ( noti ng there may

no long er

be a j ur is dicti onal min imum for di str ict c our

ts)
. See also Sulta n v. Mat he w, 178 S.W .3d 7 47,756 (Tex . 200 5) ( Hec ht, J., di ss enti ng ) (a ls o not ing “ w hether any such limit rem ains [a f

ter the 198 5 con stitutio nal am end me nt] is an unre solved q uest ion”); Sm it h v . Clar y C or p. , 917 S. W .2d 7 96, 7 99 n. 3 ( Tex . 199 6) ( per cu ri am) (referr ing to “o pen q uest ion w hether

di str ict c our

ts now hav e minimum jur is dicti onal amounts af ter the 1985 cons ti tuti onal amendments ”)
. The d a m a ges C o n w ay se eks are under

$500. H e fil ed hi s p eti ti on i n the 87

5 t h Judi ci al Di str ict C our

t, a c our t w it hin the T welf

th C our t of Appea ls D is tr ict. The Tw elfth Cou rtof Appeal s has held thata dis tr ict c our t' s mi nimum j ur is dicti onal l imi t i s $ 500. See Chapa, 999 S.W .2d a t 834
.See Per ez v. Mur ff, 972 S.W .2d 78, 86 (Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 1998, pet. deni ed) 6 (a ls o ex press ing agreement w it h the analy si s o f the San Antoni o c our t c oncer nin g co nflicts betw een c our

ts of appeal s)
. 5 W e , h o wever, ha ve a gre e d w it h th e co u rt s tha t, fo cu sin g o n th e exp re ss lan gua ge of the con stitutio nal an d stat uto ry provi sions add ressing juri sdiction of the district cou rts, hold the curren t minim um amo untin controvers y r e quired for district court jurisdiction is $200.01
. S e e R a m i

r e z v . D ie t z, No. 07-0 4-01 08-CV, 2006 W L 50 794 7 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo March 1, 20 06, no pet.) (mem
. op. ) ( citi ng Nels on v

. U.S. Post

al Ser vice, N o. 07 -0 3- 0050- CV , 200 3 W L 22069 558 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo Sept. 5, 2003, no pet .) ( mem. op.) ). Appel lee s u rg e us to re cog niz e tha t t he tr ial co urt acted c or re ctl y based on Tw elfth Court of Appe als case law. Conway resp ond s thatw e mu st follow our own prior holdings, and t hat a ppel lee s’ remedy i s to seek Supreme C our t rev iew
. Con fronted w it h thi s c lea r differenc e i n the law as appl ied by the appel lat e c our

t from w hic h thi s c ase w as transfer re d and our ow n prev iou s deci si ons, w e ag re e w it h the v iew ex press ed i n Am erican Nat’ l Ins. Co. v. Int e rn a tio nal

Bus . M achi ne C or p., 933 S.W .2d 685 , 687 (Tex.App .–S an An ton io 199 6, w rit denied ). T he court the re state d tha t in such a circum stan ce a tran sferee court shoul d notbl ind ly

appl y ei ther the transfer ring co u rt ’s prec edent or i ts ow n buti nst ead shoul d re ach it s b estco ncl usi on as to w hat t he l aw of the S tate of Tex as is on t he i ss ue b e fo re i t. Id. H a v i n g a g a i n e x a mi n e d t h e q u e s t i o n , w e w i l l a d h e re t o o u r p rev iou s 6 conc lus ion that the rati onal e s et forth i n Ar teaga v. Jacks on , 994 S.W .2d at 342, ex press es the l aw of our st ate o n the m ini mum amount in cont ro v ersy nec ess ar

y to sus tai n j ur is dicti on in the d is tr ict c our

ts, thati s, that suc h amounti s $ 200.01.6

Con w ay has pl ead actual damages in the amount of $395, an amount in ex ces s o f the jur is dicti onal amount re q uired for dist ri ct cour

t j ur is dicti on. Acc ordin g ly , w e c oncl ude t h e t r i a l c o u rte r re d i n i t s c o n c l u s i o n i tl a c k e d s u bj e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r h i s s u i t
. W e sus tai n C onw ay ’s first is sue. Giv en o ur dispo sition of Conway ’s f irst issue, w e do not rea ch his rema ining issues. T ex. R . App . P. 47 .1. T he jud gmen t of t h e t ri a l c o u rtis reversed, an d the cause is rema nde d for f urthe r proceed ings.

Jam es T . Camp bell Jus ti ce
Qui nn, C .J. , di ss enti ng .