HOUSTON - Today, the 14th Court of Appeals dismissed an inverse condemnation action against the city of Houston without prejudice, leaving the door open for the plaintiffs to refile the claim.
Bryant and Neva Banes filed an inverse condemnation action against the city in Harris County District Court.
A type of eminent domain proceeding, an inverse condemnation action is a constitutional claim in which a property owner asserts that a governmental entity intentionally performed acts that resulted in a “taking” of property for public use, without formally condemning the property.
According to the 14th Court’s opinion, the Baneses alleged in their suit that the city’s sewer construction project, running down the street in front of the Baneses’ home, created a nuisance that resulted in a constitutional taking.
In response to the suit, the city filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity, which the trial court granted, court records show.
On appeal, the parties agree that the Baneses’ claim is an inverse condemnation action that should have been filed in a county civil court at law but was instead filed in a district court, the opinion states.
The parties agreed that the case must be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds but disagreed as to whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice against refiling the claim.
The Baneses argued that the dismissal should be without prejudice because Harris County civil courts at law have exclusive jurisdiction over inverse condemnation claims filed in the county, while the city argued that dismissal should be with prejudice because it enjoys governmental immunity, according to the opinion.
The 14th Court found that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the Baneses’ claim, reversing the order granting the city’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing the case without prejudice.
“In its arguments, the City is suggesting that a court which is barred by statute from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a claim could nonetheless entertain argument and evidence and make a ruling regarding whether a state subdivision enjoyed governmental immunity from the claim,” the opinion states.
“We disagree. Having no jurisdiction over the type of claim, the trial court was without power to consider whether the City was immune from the claim.”
Case No. 14-20-00382