X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Pinnacle Gas Treating Inc. filed eight condemnation petitions with the clerk of Leon County. Following Property Code �21.013(d), which says that eminent domain cases should be assigned in rotation to each court with jurisdiction that the clerk serves, the clerk filed the petitions among the three district courts in the county. Two were filed with Jerry Sandel of the 278th District Court, three were filed with William McAdams of the 12th District Court and three were filed with Sam Bournias of the 87th District. All three judges were the elected judges of their districts. Pinnacle presented Bournias with eight orders and he appointed the same three judges as the special commissioners in each case. The commissioners took oaths and gave notice of hearings attended by the relevant parties, including property owners Raymond and Mark Read, whose case had been assigned to Sandel. Pinnacle objected to the award to the Reads. The Reads argued that appointment of the three commissioners by a judge other than the regular elected judge of the court to which the proceeding was assigned effectively circumvented the requirement of �21.013(d) that cases be assigned among the district courts on a rotating basis. The Reads also claimed the action violated �21.014(a), which requires that the “judge of a court in which a condemnation petition is filed or to which an eminent domain case is assigned shall appoint three . . . special commissioners.” Judge Sandel granted the order to dismiss the condemnation proceeding and ordered a trial. Pinnacle’s appeal of that order was dismissed by this court on appeal as being interlocutory. A jury trial in April 2000 awarded more than $100,000 to the Reads for attorneys’ fees, expenses, physical damage to the property and lost profits. On appeal, Pinnacle argues that Sandel erred in dismissing the condemnation proceedings. Pinnacle says that Texas Constitution Art. V, �11 allows judges may exchange benches. Furthermore, Pinnacle argues that any interpretation of �21.014(a) that fails to recognize Bournias’ authority to appoint the commissioners would necessarily create a conflict between the legislatively mandated rotation-assignment provision and the constitutionally based bench-exchange provision. HOLDING:Affirmed. “We need not decide whether trial judges may act for one another generally in appointing special commissioners, because in this case District Judge Sandel, in whose court the petition was filed, has determined that Judge Bournias did not act for him. He impliedly found that there was no constitutional”exchange’ of benches.” Furthermore, the court finds that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 330(e), which Pinnacle says is authority for Bournias to appoint the special commissioners, cannot be the basis for overturning Sandel’s order because it would conflict with �21.014. Reversing Sandel’s order would render the rotation statute meaningless, the court continues, because the elected judge would be denied control of the appointment process in his own court, a result not intended by the legislature. An administrative order made without authority is void. Pinnacle solicited the order from Bournias in violation of the rotation statute, so it should not complain about the results of its own acts on appeal. “Judge Sandel determined that Judge Bournias had not exchanged benches with him, held court for him, or acted at his request. In view of such a determination by the regularly elected judge of the court in which the proceeding was filed, we find no basis on which to overturn his ruling. We affirm the judgment.” OPINION:Vance, J.; Gray, C.J., Vance and Reyna, JJ. DISSENT:Gray, C.J. “This is a condemnation case. The principle issue the parties contend we must resolve is whether a duly elected district judge serving the county in which the case is filed can appoint condemnation commissioners, rather than the judge that is elected to the court to which the case is assigned. I disagree that this is the issue. There is a more narrow issue on which this case can be resolved. The issue is whether the appointment of condemnation commissioners by one elected judge for a case pending in another court is properly dismissed rather than simply proceeding to trial on the objections filed by the parties to the damages awarded by the appointed commissioners.”

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.