Court Opinion

ID: 9385532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 07:24:18.490007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:02.581249
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-21-00371-CV
                               __________________

       REMA CHARLES WOLF AND ABRAHAM WOLF, Appellants

                                          V.

                 CITY OF PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS, Appellee

 ________________________________________________________________

            On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
                      Jefferson County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. 136,986
__________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Abraham and Rema Charles Wolf (Appellants) appeal from the trial court’s

order granting the City of Port Arthur’s (Appellee or the City) Plea to the Jurisdiction

and Motions for Summary Judgment in an ongoing dispute over Appellants’

property. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                     Background

      On October 1, 2021, Appellants filed a pro se Original Complaint in Justice

of the Peace Court Precinct Eight in Jefferson County, Texas (the JP Court), against

                                           1
the City. Appellants complained “about [the City] taking and destroying”

Appellants’ property,1 asked the court “to enforce Article I section 17 of the Texas

Constitution[,]” and requested a judgment against the City for “everything Plaintiffs

are entitled to by law and equity.” Appellants acknowledged in the Complaint that

“[t]here is another case in the State Court regarding the jurisdiction and is going to

the Court of Appeals,” but they stated that “this case is a separate filing for a different

time the cause of action was occurred [sic] and is timely filed within 2 years from

the second action that occurred by the City.”

      The City filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction and Traditional and No-Evidence

Motions for Summary Judgment, arguing that in Cause No. D-202,920, styled Rema

Charles Wolf v. City of Port Arthur, the 136th Judicial District Court had already

granted the City’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motions for Summary Judgment over

the same subject matter and that court had denied Rema’s Motion for New Trial, and

decided that Texas courts do not have jurisdiction over Rema’s Texas Constitutional

(Article I, Section 17) claims against the City. The City attached the rulings in that

case, asserted that those rulings at that time were on appeal to this Court in appellate

Case No. 09-20-00236-CV, and argued that those rulings were res judicata or

collateral estoppel as to any claims made by Rema in this case. The City also argued

      1 The pro se Original Complaint did not specifically describe the property, but
in other pleadings Appellants clarified that the property at issue was located at 1101
Proctor Street in Port Arthur, Texas.
                                          2
that Plaintiffs’ pleadings were insufficient on their face to demonstrate any waiver

of governmental or sovereign immunity by the City and that Plaintiffs failed to

establish subject matter jurisdiction over their Article I, Section 17 claims because

they failed to exhaust state statutory remedies prior to filing the suit and failed to

comply with sections 214.001(a) and 54.039(a) of the Texas Local Government

Code. The City stated what it called “Undisputed Relevant Facts,” and it attached

evidence of those facts, as follows:

             Effective January 20, 1998, through Ordinance 98-04, the City
      Council of the City of Port Arthur, Texas deemed it in the best interest
      of the citizens of the City of Port Arthur, Texas to adopt the Standard
      Building Code, 1997 Edition, as published by the Southern Building
      Code Congress, Birmingham, Alabama, and created the Construction
      Board of Adjustments and Appeals. []
             The Rules and Regulations of the Construction Board of
      Adjustments and Appeals, effective at all times relevant, were subject
      to the provisions of Chapter 54 of the Texas Local Government Code. []
             Plaintiffs own a building located at 1101 Proctor Street[] in Port
      Arthur, Texas 77640, which was hit by Hurricane Harvey. Plaintiffs
      purchased the property at a Sheriff’s sale on or about November 7, 2017
      for $19,000.00. []
             At the time Plaintiffs purchased the property, the property had
      already been inspected and the City of Port Arthur, Texas had found the
      structure to be substandard and not suitable for rehabilitation. []
      Additionally, the water service had been terminated (January 16,
      1996[]), it had been requested that Entergy remove the service drop to
      the property (December 29, 2011[]), and it had also been requested that
      Texas Gas Service remove all service drops at the property (December
      29, 2011[]). [] Finally, on or about September 18, 2017, a lead paint
      and asbestos study had already been conducted by Total Safety. []
             Almost immediately upon Plaintiffs’ purchase of the property,
      the City of Port Arthur, Texas notified Plaintiffs there had been an
      inspection of the property on December 9, 2011, and the inspection
      disclosed that the building/structure was unsafe and represented a threat
                                          3
to public health, safety and welfare. [] Plaintiffs were further advised
the City of Port Arthur, Texas’ Code of Ordinance, Chapter 18 –
Buildings, Article VIII – §18-382, which adopted §110.01 of the 2006
International Property Maintenance Code (2006 Edition), required the
owner “to repair, rehabilitate, or demolish and [sic] structure which was
(a) structurally unsound, unfit for human habitation, (2) substandard
and (3) a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare by reason of access
constituting a fire hazard or other danger to human life and/or has
inadequate maintenance or abandonment. []
       On or about February 7, 2018, City of Port Arthur, Texas,
advised Plaintiff “that the Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals
of City of Port Arthur, Texas would hold a Public Hearing on Thursday,
March 15, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. at City Hall 5th Floor Council Chambers
to show cause why the buildings, dwellings, or structures set forth
herein should not be demolished or be repaired in accordance with the
statement of particulars set forth in the Building Official’s notice.” []
This correspondence was delivered to Plaintiff on February 23, 2018. []
The Notice of Public Hearing of Condemnation by the Construction
Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the City of Port Arthur, Texas,
was also published in the Port Arthur News on February 25, 2018, and
March 4, 2018. []
       Plaintiffs attended the Construction Board of Adjustments &
Appeals on March 15, 2018 [], and according to the minutes, “appeared
before the board to speak on this property.” [] At this meeting of
Construction Board of Adjustments & Appeals, it was unanimously
decided to issue a “90-day Raze or Repair Order” on 1101 Proctor
Street. []
       On or about March 22, 2018, Plaintiffs were notified, in writing,
of the Construction Board of Adjustments & Appeals decision ordering
the property razed or repaired in 90 days. [] The City of Port Arthur,
Texas, also published notice of the Construction Board of Adjustments
& Appeals Order in the Port Arthur News on March 20, 2018. [] The
notice in the Port Arthur News explicitly stated:
       [t]he following structures were declared to be public
       nuisances in accordance with Article VIII, Section 18-384,
       of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Port Arthur, it
       was ordered that the owner(s) of the following property
       execute a work program within ten [] days of the effective
       date of this order and either demolish or complete repairs
       and pass all final inspections within ninety (90) days.
                                    4
             Should the owner(s) fail to make substantial completion as
             defined in the work program, within the required ninety
             (90) days from the initiating date of the work program, the
             Construction Board orders that the property be demolished
             without further notification to the owner(s) or further
             Board action.
      []
             On or about October 25, 2018, over seven months after the
      Construction Board of Adjustments & Appeals Order, Plaintiffs were
      notified, in writing, that City of Port Arthur, Texas had awarded bids to
      demolish the structures at 1101 Proctor Street, Port Arthur, Texas. []
             On November 9, 2018, the City of Port Arthur, Texas, issued a
      demolition permit for 1101 Proctor Street to Inland Environmental. []
             On November 16, 2018, the City of Port Arthur, Texas began
      demolition of 1101 Proctor Street. []
             On November 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed for a Temporary
      Restraining Order, which was granted. [] The Court did not require a
      bond “based on the petitioner’s financial limitations.” [] The matter was
      set for additional hearing on November 27, 2018. []
             On November 30, 2018, the Court issued an Order Extending
      Temporary Restraining Order. [] The Court stated “[t]his order shall
      expire at Midnight, December 14, 2018. As a condition of this Order,
      Plaintiffs shall be required to erect safety fencing around the property
      to protect the public safety and welfare.” []
             On February 4, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Application for
      Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction, and ordered
      “that the previous order granting a temporary restraining order shall
      expire at midnight on the night of February 4, 2019 and there should
      not issue any further injunctions temporary, permanent, or
      otherwise.” []
             On February 18, 2019, the remobilization of equipment and
      demolition was restarted. [] On February 20, 2019 the demolition was
      completed. []

      The City filed a Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Consolidate, Special

Exceptions, Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses (hereinafter Motion to

Dismiss), asserting that on September 17, 2020, the 136th Judicial District Court had

                                         5
granted the City’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motions for Summary Judgment, that

the September 17, 2020 Judgment had been appealed to this Court, and that Rema

had filed two additional suits over the same facts and subject matter. According to

the City, Rema’s cause of action under Article I, Section 17 was the same subject

matter and duplicative of the prior suit that was pending at that time on appeal with

this Court, and the present lawsuit should be dismissed. In the alternative, the City

asked that the court consolidate the present case with Cause No. D-202,920 in the

136th Judicial District Court because both cases involved the same attorneys, same

parties, and same evidence. The City filed special exceptions to Plaintiffs’ Original

Petition, and the City’s Original Answer asserted affirmative defenses including lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. The City also attached exhibits to its motion, including

pleadings in Cause No. D-202,920 in the 136th Judicial District Court, that court’s

judgment granting the City’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motions for Summary

Judgment, and that court’s denial of Rema’s motion for new trial.

      Plaintiffs filed a response alleging that the JP Court suit is different from the

former because it was for a cause of action that “happened on a different time.” The

Justice of the Peace Court denied the City’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motions for

Summary Judgment, and the City pursued a de novo appeal to the County Court at

Law Number One in Jefferson County. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.

§ 51.014(a)(8); Tex. R. Civ. P. 506.3.

                                           6
      On October 11, 2021, the City filed an Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction and

Amended Traditional and No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment, again

asserting there was a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Article I,

Section 17 claim because the claim was barred by the doctrines of res judicata or

collateral estoppel preventing relitigation of the same cause of action or issue in a

second suit between the same parties, and that Plaintiffs had not shown they have a

viable claim under Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution. The City also

asserted that Plaintiffs’ argument that damages caused by the demolition in 2018

were different than those caused by the continued demolition in 2019 was inaccurate.

According to the City, on November 16, 2018, the City began demolition, then the

same day Plaintiffs filed for a TRO, which was granted. The Order dated November

30, 2018, extended the TRO and stated that it would expire at midnight, December

14, 2018, and as a condition of the order Plaintiffs were required to erect safety

fencing around the property. The City notes that the trial court did not reconsider the

TRO or Temporary Injunction for almost sixty days, the trial court thereafter denied

Plaintiffs’ Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction

and ordered that the prior TRO expire at midnight on February 4, 2019, and the trial

court ordered that no further injunctions would issue. Once all temporary orders had

expired, on February 18, 2019, the demolition was then continued, and the

demolition was completed on February 20, 2019.

                                          7
      Appellants argued in the JP Court and on appeal de novo to the County Court

at Law, that this case is “a completely different case[]” that “occurred at [a] different

time[]” (on February 19, 2019) than the case in Cause No. D-202,920 in the 136th

Judicial District Court. According to Appellants, they provided a notice of claim in

this suit to the city manager, “[t]he subject building was taken and destroyed [f]or or

applied to public use[,]” the City used the property for public use during the City’s

Mardi Gras parade celebration, the City used the property to park its heavy

equipment without Appellants’ consent, the City unlawfully used the property for

changing heavy equipment oil and dumping oil and destroying the soil without

Appellants’ consent and without compensating Appellants, and the Construction

Board of Adjustments & Appeals never made a final administrative determination

that the subject building should be demolished because of code or ordinance

violations or because it was a public nuisance.

      After a hearing, on November 4, 2021, the County Court at Law granted the

City’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motions for Summary Judgment.2 Appellants filed

this appeal.

      2Because an appeal from the justice of the peace court is de novo, we refer to
the County Court at Law No. 1 hereinafter as the trial court. See Tex. R. Civ. P.
506.3. Also, the City’s Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction and Amended Traditional
and No-Evidence Motions for Summary Judgment were on file at the time the
County Court at Law No. 1 granted the motions.
                                        8
                                   Prior Litigation

      The demolition of the property at 1101 Proctor Street in Port Arthur, Texas,

has been the subject of ongoing litigation. This Court takes judicial notice of the

record on appeal in Rema’s prior lawsuit styled Rema Charles Wolf v. The City of

Port Arthur, in the 136th Judicial District of Jefferson County, Texas.3 See Moore

v. Zeller, 153 S.W.3d 262, 264 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004, pet. denied)

(explaining that a court may take judicial notice of its own records, including the

record in the appeal of an appellant’s prior lawsuit). In November 2018, Rema Wolf

filed an Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and

Temporary Injunction in the 136th District Court in Jefferson County, Texas. Rema

sued the City for fraud, harassment and trespassing related to the demolition of her

property located at 1101 Proctor Street, Port Arthur, Texas. Rema also sought a

temporary restraining order to stop the demolition of the building on the property.4

      3  According to a document filed by the City in this appeal, Rema has filed
multiple suits against the City (and additional defendants in some cases) regarding
the demolition of the property. As to those suits, we note that there have been several
appeals to this Court in addition to this appeal, including appellate Case No. 09-20-
00236-CV, No. 09-21-00382, and No. 09-21-00383-CV. That said, for purposes of
this appeal, we limit our discussion of any prior related litigation to the suit filed by
Rema against the City in the 136th District Court and the appeal of that court’s
judgment granting the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and motions for summary
judgment, which was part of appellate Case No. 09-20-00236-CV.
       4 The 136th Judicial District Court denied Rema’s Application for Temporary

Injunction, and that decision was affirmed by this Court. See Wolf v. City of Port
Arthur, No. 09-19-00047-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 6187, at **11-12, *21 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont Aug. 6, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).
                                           9
Rema filed an Amended Petition alleging against the City violations of Article I,

Section 17 of the Texas Constitution, tort claims based on negligence, trespass to

property, unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, fraud, theft of property,

invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and illegal dumping.

      The City filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motions for Summary Judgment,

asserting various grounds including that Rema had no viable claim under Article I,

Section 17 of the Texas Constitution because she failed to meet statutory

prerequisites for suit under sections 214.0012 and 54.039 of the Texas Local

Government Code.

      On August 19, 2020, Rema filed her Fifth Amended Original Petition (the

petition on file at the time the 136th Judicial District Court granted the City’s Plea

to the Jurisdiction and Motions for Summary Judgment in that case) and included a

takings claim under Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution. According to

Rema, the destruction and demolition of her building at 1101 Proctor constituted a

taking in violation of Article I, Section17 of the Texas Constitution because she has

not been compensated for the injury and the damage that resulted to her by the

destruction of the building and the taking was for a public use.

      In September of 2020, the 136th District Court granted the City’s Plea to the

Jurisdiction and Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that Rema had failed

to timely appeal as required by sections 54.039 and 214.0012(a) of the Texas Local

                                          10
Government Code, and that judgment was appealed to this Court. See Wolf v. City

of Port Arthur, No. 09-20-00236-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 3897, at *3 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont June 9, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.). This Court affirmed the

trial court’s judgment granting the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion for

summary judgment “[b]ecause [Rema] failed to seek judicial review in the manner

set forth by sections 54.039 and 214.0012(a) of the Texas Local Government Code,

and because [Rema] similarly failed to state a claim under the Texas Tort Claims

Act[.]” Id. at *12. On October 21, 2022, the Texas Supreme Court denied Rema’s

petition for review. See Wolf v. City of Port Arthur, No. 22-0732, 2022 Tex. App.

LEXIS 941 (Tex. Oct. 21, 2022). On January 20, 2023, the Texas Supreme Court

denied Rema’s motion for rehearing of her petition for review. See Wolf v. City of

Port Arthur, No. 22-0732, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 45 (Tex. Jan. 20, 2023).

                     Standard of Review and Applicable Law

      Governmental immunity protects political subdivisions of the State, including

cities, from lawsuits for damages, because unless the governmental unit has

consented to suit, a trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider a claim

against it. See Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-26

(Tex. 2004); Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692, 694 n.3, 696

(Tex. 2003); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.001(3)(B).

                                         11
      Consent to suit is found in a constitutional or legislative provision, and

whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, based on a waiver of immunity, is a

question of law, and we review the trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction

de novo. State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. 2007); Miranda, 133 S.W.3d

at 226, 228.

      A governmental entity may file a plea to the jurisdiction to challenge a court’s

power to resolve the merits of a plaintiff’s claims. See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v.

Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000). To defeat the government’s immunity, the

plaintiff must plead facts that affirmatively demonstrate that governmental immunity

has been waived and the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction. Holland, 221

S.W.3d at 642. When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of

jurisdictional facts, we consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties to

determine whether a fact issue exists. City of Waco v. Kirwan, 298 S.W.3d 618, 622

(Tex. 2009) (citing Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227). We take as true all evidence

favorable to the nonmovant, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any

doubts in the nonmovant’s favor. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228.

      In cases involving damage or destruction of property, immunity is waived

through the application of the Texas Constitution, which states, in pertinent part:

         (a) No person’s property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for
             or applied to public use without adequate compensation being
             made, unless by the consent of such person, and only if the
             taking, damage, or destruction is for:
                                         12
             (1) the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property,
                 notwithstanding an incidental use, by:
                 (A) the State, a political subdivision of the State, or the public
                     at large; or
                 (B) an entity granted the power of eminent domain under law;
                    or
             (2) the elimination of urban blight on a particular property.

Tex. Const. art. I, § 17(a).

      We review a trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Nall v.

Plunkett, 404 S.W.3d 552, 555 (Tex. 2013). When the trial court does not specify

the grounds for its ruling, a summary judgment will be affirmed if any of the grounds

advanced by the motion are meritorious. FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin,

22 S.W.3d 868, 872-73 (Tex. 2000). In a traditional motion for summary judgment,

the moving party must show that no genuine dispute exists as to any material fact

such that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c).

A defendant may obtain summary judgment by conclusively establishing an

affirmative defense. Frost Nat’l Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 494, 508 (Tex.

2010). We review the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to the

nonmovant, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts against

the motion. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754, 756 (Tex.

2007).

             “Res judicata bars the relitigation of claims that have been finally
      adjudicated or that could have been litigated in the prior action.” The
      policies behind res judicata “reflect the need to bring litigation to an
      end, prevent vexatious litigation, maintain stability of court decisions,
                                           13
      promote judicial economy, and prevent double recovery.” For any
      rational and workable judicial system, at some point litigation must
      come to an end, so that parties can go on with their lives and the system
      can move on to the other disputes. We have recognized the
      “fundamental rule that it is the purpose of the law to put an end to
      litigation and expedite the administration of justice.”

Engelman Irrigation Dist. v. Shields Bros., 514 S.W.3d 746, 750 (Tex. 2017)

(citations omitted). The affirmative defense of res judicata is established by proof of

(1) a prior final determination on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction;5

(2) identity of parties or those in privity with them; and (3) a second action based on

the same claims as those that were or could have been raised in the first action. Eagle

Oil & Gas Co. v. TRO-X, L.P., 619 S.W.3d 699, 705-06 (Tex. 2021). The party

asserting the affirmative defense of res judicata has the burden of proving each

element of the defense. Tex. R. Civ. P. 94; Eagle Oil & Gas Co., 619 S.W.3d at 706.

      We construe an appellant’s pro se brief liberally. See Giddens v. Brooks, 92

S.W.3d 878, 880 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002, pet. denied) (“pro se pleadings and

briefs are to be liberally construed[]”); see also Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767

S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex. 1989) (a reviewing court construes points of error liberally

to obtain a just, fair, and equitable adjudication of the parties’ rights). That said, a

pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply

      5 A prior plea to the jurisdiction decision based on sovereign or governmental
immunity is a final judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. Engelman
Irrigation Dist. v. Shields Bros., 514 S.W.3d 746, 750-55 (Tex. 2017).
                                          14
with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573

S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978).

                                      Analysis

      Appellants argue the trial court erred in granting the City’s Plea to the

Jurisdiction and Motions for Summary Judgment, and Appellants parse their

argument into ten statements they call “issues.” Each of their statements pertains to

the overall complaint that the trial court erred in granting the City’s Plea to the

Jurisdiction and Motions for Summary Judgment. We conclude the trial court

properly granted the City’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motions for Summary

Judgment because Rema’s takings claim is barred by res judicata and Abraham lacks

standing. 6

      Appellants argue that the takings claim in the JP Court as presented to the

County Court at Law is different than the takings claim in Cause No. D-202,920,

styled Rema Charles Wolf v. City of Port Arthur, in the 136th Judicial District Court

of Jefferson County, Texas. We disagree. In Cause No. D-202,920, Rema’s Fifth

Amended Petition was before the 136th Judicial District Court at the time it granted

the City’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motions for Summary Judgment. The Fifth

Amended Petition included, among other claims, a takings claim against the City for

      6 Because the issue of standing is jurisdictional, it can be raised for the first
time on appeal. See Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845, 849 (Tex.
2005). Here, the City raised the issue of Abraham’s standing in its brief on appeal.
                                          15
the destruction of the property at 1101 Proctor, and allegations that the City used the

property for public use and did not compensate Rema for damages caused by the

City’s destruction of the building on the property. In Rema’s affidavit attached to

the petition, she alleged that the City used the property during the Mardi Gras parade.

In the underlying allegations in the present JP Court as presented to the County Court

at Law, in Appellants’ pro se Original Petition Appellants generally complained

“about [the City] taking and destroying” Appellants’ property, and they asked the

court “to enforce Article I section 17 of the Texas Constitution[.]” In Rema’s

affidavit attached to the petition, she asserted the City used the property during the

Mardi Gras parade. Appellants’ appellate brief complains that the City took and

damaged their property at 1101 Proctor Street, destroyed the property with heavy

equipment and illegal dumping, and used the property for public use. This Court

recently concluded in Case No. 09-20-00236-CV, the appeal of the case from the

136th Judicial District Court that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction

over Rema’s case and properly granted the City’s plea to the jurisdiction because

Rema’s failure to file a direct appeal of the City’s administrative determination

barred her subsequent collateral attack on that determination. See Wolf, 2022 Tex.

App. LEXIS 3897, at **7-10 (citing City of Beaumont v. Como, 381 S.W.3d 538,

539-40 (Tex. 2012); Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 54.039(a), 214.0012(a)). We

conclude that the trial court correctly granted the City’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and

                                          16
Motions for Summary Judgment because Rema’s claim in the present suit is the

same as the takings claim that was dismissed in Cause No. D-202,920 in the 136th

Judicial District Court.

      The trial court had uncontradicted evidence presented with the City’s motions

that Rema’s current suit is barred by res judicata. The City provided proof of a prior

final determination on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. See Eagle Oil

& Gas Co., 619 S.W.3d at 705-06. The City also established that the prior suit was

between both Rema and the City. See id. As to the third element establishing res

judicata, the City has demonstrated that the present suit is based on the same claims

as those that were or could have been raised in the first action. See id.

      As to Abraham’s claim, “‘it is fundamental that, to recover under the

constitutional takings clause, one must first demonstrate an ownership interest in the

property taken[,]’” and if one “does not own the disputed land, the takings claim is

not viable, and the trial court lacks jurisdiction.” See Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. A.P.I.

Pipe & Supply, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 162, 166 (Tex. 2013) (quoting Tex. Dep’t of

Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637, 644 (Tex. 2004)). Abraham

alleged he was an owner of the property at issue, but the City attached evidence to

its Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction and Amended Motions for Summary Judgment

                                          17
demonstrating that Rema is the only owner of record for the property,7 and Abraham

did not provide the trial court with any evidence to the contrary.

      Because we conclude as explained above that the trial court did not err in

granting the City’s Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motions for Summary Judgment and

entering a dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, we do not reach Appellants’

other challenges. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1 (instructing appellate courts to “hand

down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that addresses every issue

raised and necessary to final disposition on appeal[]”). Accordingly, we overrule

Appellants’ issues and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

      AFFIRMED.

                                                    _________________________
                                                        LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                              Justice

Submitted on March 14, 2023
Opinion Delivered April 6, 2023

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

      7 The City cites to the Sheriff’s Deed executed on November 7, 2017, that lists
Rema Charles Wolf as the purchaser of the property, Rema’s pleadings and affidavit
stating that she is the owner of the property that were filed in her suit in the 136th
Judicial District Court, and these documents are included in our appellate record.
Additionally, even if Abraham has standing, he has not demonstrated that he met the
statutory prerequisites for suit under sections 214.0012 and 54.039 of the Texas
Local Government Code.
                                          18