Court Opinion

ID: 9748653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:09:01.285546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:38.112739
License: Public Domain

WALKER, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I must dissent to the majority’s decision to rule on the merits of this appeal. Based upon the record before me, the good faith amount in controversy is $270. The various “$10,000.00” damage allegations for intentional or reckless conduct on the part of the appellees contained in appellant’s petition filed with the trial court should be considered as having been waived because appellant’s written administrative requests for relief to the prison authorities were silent as to any intentional or reckless acts involved in the destruction of his typewriter. As a general rule, an administrative litigant may preserve a complaint only by giving the agency an opportunity to review the legal ground on which the complaint is based. See Sears v. State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 759 S.W.2d 748, 750 (Tex.App.—Austin 1988, no writ); Burke v. Central Educ. Agency, 725 S.W.2d 393, 396-397 (Tex.App.—Austin 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
The record reflects that appellant was repeatedly informed by the prison authorities that the typewriter was destroyed “unintentionally.” Appellant did not take issue with this response at the administrative level. As such, any later allegations that the destruction was caused intentionally or recklessly should be considered made in bad faith. As amount in controversy between parties, for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction, is determined by good faith pleadings of the parties, see Smith Detective Agency & Nightwatch Service, Inc. v. Stanley Smith Sec., Inc., 938 S.W.2d 743, 747 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1996, writ denied), the amount in controversy in the instant case is limited to $270.1
In the instant case, because the only amount in controversy alleged in good faith is $270, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the case. This is based upon the finding that although both Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 24.007 (Vernon 1988), and Tex. Const. art. V, § 8 were recodified and amended, respectively, in 1985, so as to delete the $500 minimum amount in controversy, the legislature did not intend any substantive change in the former law by said recodification and amendment. See Chapa v. Spivey, 999 S.W.2d 833, 835-836 (Tex.App.—Tyler *3711999, no pet.). Because the majority finds trial court jurisdiction, and then proceeds to rule on the merits of the appeal instead of dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction by this Court, I dissent.

. Similarly, a mere unfounded claim to a penalty or attorney’s fees will not serve to place a case within the jurisdiction of a district court. See Bybee v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 160 Tex. 429, 331 S.W.2d 910, 913 (1960).