AUSTIN - On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court found that a trial court erred by granting Medina County’s plea to the jurisdiction in litigation over the sale of a property.
Christina Mitchell Busbee, district attorney for the 38th Judicial District, which ecompasses Real and Uvalde counties, objected to the sale of a property owned by Medina County, but was purchased with the district's forfeiture funds when the county was still part of the district.
According to the high court’s opinion, after the county sued to quiet title, Busbee brought counterclaims alleging that the county could not sell the property without her consent and that she was entitled to the sale proceeds.
Court records show the trial court granted the county’s plea to the jurisdiction on standing grounds, and a court of appeals affirmed the ruling.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district attorney has constitutional standing to assert her counterclaims.
“The trial court erred by granting Medina County’s plea to the jurisdiction on standing grounds,” the opinion states. “Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we grant the petition for review, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.”
Justices also remand to the trial court to address additional jurisdictional challenges, expressing no opinion as to their merit.
Court records show the Office of the Attorney General filed a brief in the case, stating that the
lower courts erroneously treated the case as jurisdictional the question of whether a party has a cause of action.
“That question goes to the merits and is therefore not the proper subject of a plea,” the brief states. “The State has an interest in seeing Texas courts properly distinguish jurisdictional issues from merits issues when considering pleas to the jurisdiction.”
Case background
According to the opinion, in 1998 the 38th Judicial District also encompassed Medina County. That year, the DA used funds from the district’s forfeiture account to buy an office building in Medina County.
In 2019, the Legislature divided the 38th Judicial District into two districts, with Medina County comprising the new 454th Judicial District and Uvalde and Real Counties remaining in the 38th, the opinion states.
As a result, according to the opinion, the office was no longer in the 38th Judicial District, and the property’s deed restricted Medina County from using the building as the new 454th Judicial District Attorney’s Office. The Medina County Commissioners Court decided to sell the building and buy a different property to house their office. The DA at the time consented to the building’s sale to the Medina County Appraisal District.
“Medina, Uvalde, and Real Counties agreed that Medina County would split the proceeds from the property’s sale between Medina County’s forfeiture account and a separate forfeiture account controlled by Uvalde and Real Counties,” the opinion states. “But Christina Busbee—who had won an election to replace Haby as the 38th Judicial District Attorney but had not yet taken office—notified the Medina County Judge that all proceeds from the property’s sale would be 38th Judicial District forfeiture funds under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 591 and would therefore be state property subject to her administration.
“After she was sworn in as the new 38th Judicial District Attorney, and before the sale closed, Busbee informed the County that she did not consent to the property’s sale and demanded that the County forward any proceeds from the sale to the 38th Judicial District Attorney forfeiture account immediately.”
Supreme Court case No. 22-0751