Quantcast

SOUTHEAST TEXAS RECORD

Tuesday, April 30, 2024

Ninth rules against property owner whose Port Arthur building was demolished by city

State Court
Arthur7

Flooding in Port Arthur after Hurricane Harveycaine | Flickr

BEAUMONT, Texas – A Texas appeals court has ruled against the owner of a Port Authur building damaged by Hurricane Harvey who was seeking a permit from the city to have it repaired when the city bulldozed it.

After the city had destroyed approximately 40% of the building, the owner, Rema Charles Wolf, obtained a restraining order barring the remainder of the demolition. The city finished the demolition anyway and Wolf sued.

The city claimed governmental immunity. It also claimed the building was structurally unsound.

“I can’t issue an order to retroactively undemolish a building that’s already been demolished,” the trial judge ruled, dismissing the lawsuit. Wolf appealed, representing herself.

She claimed the city “committed fraud by not issuing her the permits she needed to make repairs and the city waived immunity by committing fraud,” the appeals court said.

She also claimed the trial court did not “hold [the city] accountable” for disobeying a court order and destroying a portion of the subject property without giving notice to Wolf,” and did not order the city pay damages.

A three-judge panel of the Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals on Aug. 6 dismissed those claims, ruling that Wolf failed to present a record of any ruling from the trial court on those issues for the judges to review.

“The record includes no appealable ruling, order, or judgment granting or denying damages,” the appeal court said.

The appeals court also rejected several other claims by Wolf that the city claimed were moot because the building had already been torn down. It said Wolf failed to present any documentary evidence about the building's historical or artistic value.

"Deferring to the trial court’s role as fact-finder, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying the request for further injunctive relief, and its ruling was not outside  the zone of reasonable disagreement," the appellate panel wrote.

Wolf v. The City of Port Arthur 09-19-00047-CV

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News