Court Opinion

ID: 2918981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 00:11:31.17591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:08:22.086311
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI
_____________________________________________________________________

NUMBER 13-99-343-CV

PAULA S. WAKEFIELD DUNCAN 

AND MICHAEL D. DUNCAN,	Appellants,

v.

CALHOUN COUNTY NAVIGATION 

DISTRICT,	Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 135th District Court
of Calhoun County, Texas.
___________________________________________________________________

AND
___________________________________________________________________

NUMBER 13-99-344-CV

LOUIS FOESTER, III AND WIFE,

SHIRLEY FOESTER,	Appellants,

v.

CALHOUN COUNTY NAVIGATION 

DISTRICT,	Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 24th District Court
of Calhoun County, Texas.
___________________________________________________________________

AND
_____________________________________________________________________

NUMBER 13-99-345-CV

JOSEPHINE FOESTER BISHOP 

INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP,

LTD., AND LOUIS FOESTER, III,	Appellants,

v.

CALHOUN COUNTY NAVIGATION 

DISTRICT,	Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 135th District Court
of Calhoun County, Texas.
___________________________________________________________________

AND
___________________________________________________________________

NUMBER 13-99-346-CV

WAYNE HENDERSON AND WIFE, 

HATTIE HENDERSON,	Appellants,

v.

CALHOUN COUNTY NAVIGATION 

DISTRICT,	Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 267th District Court
of Calhoun County, Texas.
___________________________________________________________________

AND
___________________________________________________________________

NUMBER 13-99-347-CV

JAMES E. SHANNON, JR. AND 

CAROLYN C. SHANNON,	Appellants,

v.

CALHOUN COUNTY NAVIGATION 

DISTRICT,	Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 135th District Court
of Calhoun County, Texas.
___________________________________________________________________

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and

Yañez

Opinion by Justice Dorsey

	In their motion for rehearing, the landowners contend that this
court improperly reversed the trial court's severance of a particular issue
involved in the summary judgment proceeding.  That issue is whether
the Navigation District's actions in taking the land were void because
it failed to file a "takings impact assessment" report.  The Private Real
Property Rights Preservation Act requires that governmental entities file
such a report in certain situations.  See Tex. Govt. Code Ann. §§ 2007
(Vernon 2000).  However, the Act does not apply to "a formal exercise
of the power of eminent domain."  Id. at § 2007.003(b)(8).

	In our original opinion, we held that the issues of right to take and
just compensation may not be severed in a condemnation proceeding. 
In this case, the Navigation District's compliance with the Act bears
directly on the issue of whether its taking of the easement was legally
sound.  If the Act was applicable, the failure to file the takings impact
assessment would render the Navigation District's taking void.  Id. at
§ 2007.044(a).  Accordingly, because this issue is so interwoven with
the other right to take issues in the condemnation proceeding, we held
that the severance was improper.  We acknowledge that an action to
declare a governmental taking void under the Act may be brought as an
independent suit.  Id.  However, in this case, we hold the appropriate
course is to leave all the right to take issues consolidated with the
condemnation proceeding.

	The motion for rehearing is overruled.

								______________________________

								J. BONNER DORSEY,

								Justice

Publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 28th day of September 2000.