Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:This is an appeal concerning the payment of funds deposited into the registry of the court to the wrong person. The appellants, the persons who were entitled to the funds, sued Denton County, the Denton County judge, and the current and former Denton County district clerks to recover the funds. The trial court sustained appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction. There are three underlying suits leading to this appeal. The first suit settled. A dispute existed between plaintiffs and their attorneys, including appellants, concerning the amount of the settlement proceeds that the attorneys were entitled to receive. Therefore, in its judgment, the trial court ordered the defendants to tender $215,000, the amount in dispute, into the registry of the court, and further ordered that “no amount of this money . . . shall be removed from the Registry of this Court pending further Order of this Court.” The second suit was filed to determine who was entitled to the funds deposited into the registry of the court. The trial court ordered that appellants were entitled to $233,015, which consisted of the original $215,000 plus accrued interest. Without a court order or appellants’ consent, the former Denton County district clerk paid $55,000 of the funds deposited into the registry of the court to someone other than appellants. Appellants then filed the third suit, claiming that the district clerk’s wrongful payment of funds deposited into the registry of the court amounted to a taking of appellant’s property in violation of �17, Article I of the Texas Constitution. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that they were entitled to sovereign immunity and official immunity. Appellees also asserted special exceptions, claiming that appellants had failed to plead a cause of action recognized by Texas law. After a hearing, the trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction “for want of jurisdiction and the failure to plead a cognizable cause of action.” HOLDING:Because no error has been assigned to the trial court’s order to the extent it dismisses the case against the county judge, the court affirms the order granting the county judge’s plea to the jurisdiction. The court reverses the trial court’s order granting the plea to the jurisdiction as to Denton County and the former and current district clerks and remands to the trial court to allow appellants an opportunity to amend their pleadings to assert cognizable causes of action. Appellants do not assert on appeal that the payment of funds in this case was a taking for a public use. Instead, they argue that the takings clause also waives governmental immunity when takings are for a private use. To support this argument, they rely on two condemnation cases holding that Texas Constitution Article I, �17 not only requires the payment of adequate compensation for property taken for public use, but also prohibits the taking of property for private use. Maher v. Lasater, 354 S.W.2d 923 (Tex. 1962); Saunders v. Titus County Fresh Water Supply Dist. No. 1, 847 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App. � Texarkana 1993, no writ). In both Maher and Saunders, the condemnation orders were set aside. In neither case, however, did the courts read into the takings clause a waiver of sovereign immunity for a governmental taking of private property for a private use. Consequently, no authority exists for the proposition that sovereign immunity is waived when governmental entities take private property for a private use. Under Maher and Saunders, such a taking may be declared void, but these cases do not hold that the void conduct of the state waives immunity from suit for monetary damages. The court holds that the trial court did not err by granting appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction. The trial court did err, however, by dismissing the case without affording appellants an opportunity to amend their pleadings to assert other cognizable causes of action. OPINION:Gardner, J.; Holman, Gardner and Walker, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.