Source: http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/1stCoA-2010-Clear-Lake-City-Water-Authority-v-MCR-Corp-by-Radack-districts-immunity-to-BoC-waived-by-statute.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:59:25+00:00

Document:
section 271.152 of the Texas Local Government Code, we affirm the trial court's order.
the residential lots within the subdivision pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.
Authority to purchase the Facilities. Each time, the measures failed.
Facilities. This time, the measure regarding funding for the other Authority projects passed.
approved bonds to fund the purchase of the Facilities.
jurisdiction and that, as a matter of law, governmental immunity bars MCR's lawsuit.
(Tex. 1999). Governmental immunity has two components: immunity from liability and immunity from suit.
would be meaningless unless immunity were waived.
immunity, we are less likely to find a waiver.
attach, the Legislature has intentionally waived the State's sovereign immunity.
Id. at 697-98 (citations omitted).
Water Auth. v. Friendswood Dev. Co., 256 S.W.3d 735, 741 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist. 2008, pet.
In filing a plea to the jurisdiction, a litigant challenges the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. Bland Indep.
instead, we must yield to the plain sense of the words the Legislature chose. See id.
49.066 (Vernon 2000); Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 271.152 (Vernon 2005).
and collect taxes or assessments to pay the judgment.
notice, or demand required or permitted by law to be served upon the district may be served.
(3) the validity or the authorization of a contract with the United States by the district.
Tex. Water Code Ann. § 49.066.
concluded that the statute does not waive the government's immunity from suit. See Valley Mun. Util. Dist. No.
State Hospital. See Clear Lake I at 744-45 (citing Wichita Falls State Hosp., 106 S.W.3d at 697-98).
written contracts, but failed to do so. Id. at 744.
damages, and damages for unabsorbed home office overhead).
Legislature did not waive the Authority's immunity from suit by clear and unambiguous language. Id. at 745.
that section 49.066 of the Water Code does not waive the Authority's immunity from suit.
adjudicating a claim for breach of contract, subject to the terms and conditions of this subchapter.
Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 271.152.
(2) The entity must enter into "a contract subject to this subchapter."
contract . . . for the arbitration proceedings."
Agreement; however, the Authority argues that the Agreement is not "a contract subject to this subchapter,"
services to the local governmental entity that is properly executed on behalf of the local governmental entity."
waiver applies only to contracts "stating" the agreement's essential terms, implied agreements are excluded.
contemplated by section 271.151(2). The Agreement contains the following provisions.
(7) MCR shall lease . . . all unacquired, completed, and operable portions of the Facilities to the Authority . . .
shall alone operate and maintain the leased Facilities or cause the same to be operated and maintained.
Supreme Court applying the language of section 271.152(2). See Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consol. Indep. Sch.
Dist. v. Tex. Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self-Ins. Fund, 212 S.W.3d 320, 326-27 (Tex.
of the fund and the fund's members elected the fund's governing board.
1. The sale of the Facilities is not a provision of goods.
Facilities to the Authority does not involve the provision of goods.
residents rather than to the Authority." Clear Lake I, 256 S.W.3d at 750-51.
the Subdivision." Id. at 750-51.
2. The Agreement is not an "implied contract."
contract because an implied contract is not a written contract as required under section 271.152. Id.
on whether the agreement constitutes a written contract.
argument, the Authority cites City of Corpus Christi v. Bayfront Assocs., Ltd., 814 S.W.2d 98 (Tex. 1991).
any bond election or bond issuance.
to review by the courts." Clear Lake City Water Auth. v. Kirby Lake Dev. Ltd., 123 S.W.3d 735, 749 (Tex.
App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet dism'd).
pay for the Facilities, and the Authority has no obligation to ensure that this condition precedent is fulfilled.
imposes an obligation on the City to adjust the contract price, and thus the City owes nothing in damages.
due and owed under the contract"
due and owed under the Agreement." Id. at 744.
Local Government Code. See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code. §§ 271.151, 271.152; Ben Bolt, 212 S.W.3d at 326-27.
173; Tex. Water Code Ann. Chs. 49, 51 (Vernon 2000 & Supp. 2007).
counties, cities, and school districts. Id.
of bonds. See Tex. Water Code Ann. § 49.184 (Vernon Supp. 2009).
executed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.
Act of May 23, 2005, 79th Leg. R.S., ch. 604, sec. 2, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 1548, 1549.
set forth in C.S.H.B. 2039." House Comm. On Civil Practices, Bill Analysis, Tex. H.B. 2039, 79th Leg., R.S.
exemplary damages, and damages for unabsorbed office overhead, in section 271.153(b). See Tex. Loc.
construction of a storm drainage system)); Carrollton v. McMahon Contracting, L.P., 134 S.W.3d 925 (Tex.
(Tex. 2006)((contract for street repairs)); Satterfield & Pontikes Const., Inc. v. Irving ISD, 123 S.W.3d 63 (Tex.
(Tex. 2006)(contract for new school building)). All of these cases involved real estate.

References: v. 
 § 271
 § 49
 § 271
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 49
 v. 
 v.