Court Opinion

ID: 9385779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-09 08:11:51.875956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:33.392848
License: Public Domain

Motion Granted, Appeal Dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed April 6,
2023.

                                     In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                              NO. 14-22-00647-CV

                         JAMIE GALVAN, Appellant

                                        V.

                  BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee

     On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 and Probate Court
                         Brazoria County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. CI63421

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Before the court is a motion to dismiss the appeal filed by appellee Brazoria
County, Texas on the basis that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal as
appellee Jamie Galvan did not timely file an objection with the trial court in an
eminent domain proceeding. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

      This appeal arises from condemnation proceedings in Brazoria County. On
February 10, 2022, three special commissioners appointed pursuant to Texas
Property Code § 21.014 held a hearing and signed an award assessing damages to
be paid by Brazoria County for Condemnation of property within the county. The
award reflects that its signing occurred the same day as a hearing at which
appellant, among other individuals, appeared personally or through counsel. The
appellate record reflects that the only document appellant filed in the trial court in
association with this proceeding is a motion to withdraw funds deposited in the
trial court’s registry, which he filed on March 17, 2022. In addition, the appellate
record reflects that between the signing of the commissioners’ award and
appellants’ March 17th filing, the only documents filed with the trial court
reflected mailing and service of documents, and provided notice that the damages
the commissioners awarded had been deposited with the trial court. The trial court
signed a final order adopting the commissioners’ award and awarding other relief
on August 24, 2022. This appeal followed.

      Although the motion and the briefing have raised multiple arguments for
why this court ostensibly lacks jurisdiction over this appeal, this court only needs
to resolve one of them to dispose of this case. The motion asserts that because no
party timely filed objections to the commissioners’ award with the trial court, the
trial court’s judgment on the commissioners’ award is not appealable. Under the
applicable statute, “[a] party to a condemnation proceeding may object to the
findings of the special commissioners by filing a written statement of the
objections and their grounds with the court that has jurisdiction of the proceeding.
The statement must be filed on or before the first Monday following the 20th day
after the day the commissioners file their findings with the court.” Tex. Prop.
Code Ann. § 21.018(a).      When no party has timely filed an objection to the
commissioners’ award, “there is no judgment from which a party can appeal.” NA
Land Co. v. State, 624 S.W.3d 671, 673 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021,

                                          2
no pet.).

       Under the deadline provided by the statute, appellant and all other parties to
the condemnation proceeding had until March 7, 2023 (the first Monday occurring
more than 20 days after the commissioners’ award was signed) to file an objection
to the commissioners’ award with the trial court. The appellate record does not
reflect that any party filed an objection with the trial court by that deadline.1
Consequently, this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.

       On March 16, 2023, notification was transmitted to the parties that the
appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction without further notice
unless any party demonstrated this court had jurisdiction on or before March 27,
2023. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 42.3(a). Appellant’s response fails to demonstrate
this court can exercise jurisdiction over this appeal.

       Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

                                         PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Wilson.

       1
          As appellant’s sole filing with the trial court, aside from the notice of appeal, was filed
after the statutory deadline, there is no need for this court to determine whether the filing was an
objection that would enable appellant to appeal a judgment from the trial court.

                                                 3