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:H.P. Pinnel owns approximately 460 acres of land on an unincorporated area on the northern part of South Padre Island adjacent to Laguna Madre, which separates the island from Port Isabel. In July and August of 2003, Port Isabel adopted three ordinances that purported to annex areas � in five-mile increments, each � off the coast of Port Isabel into Laguna Madre. In February 2004, Port Isabel posted notice of a public hearing to annex 18 separate one-mile units that covered essentially the same areas annexed by the prior ordinances. Port Isabel notified Pinnell that it intended to annex his property, and that a public hearing would be held in March. Before that hearing, on Feb. 24, Port Isabel adopted 17 ordinances annexing land all the way up to the shores of the island. Though this ordinance, No. 652, did not annex Pinnel’s property, it did extend Port Isabel’s boundary to within one mile of his property, and property within one mile of the city’s boundary is within its extraterritorial jurisdiction. On March 8, the town of South Padre Island (SPI) adopted an ordinance to expand its extraterritorial jurisdiction to include Pinnel’s property, which was what Pinnel wanted. The ordinance was backdated to be effective on Feb. 23, which was the day Pinnel asked for the ordinance. Pinnel filed suit against Port Isabel on March 29. Though the trial court granted Pinnel’s request for a temporary restraining order against Port Isabel, it denied a preliminary injunction. SPI intervened, asking the trial court for a preliminary injunction against Port Isabel and asking for a declaration that the annexation ordinances adopted by Port Isabel are void. On April 6 and April 7, Port Isabel passed another ordinance, No. 657, to annex Pinnel’s property. Port Isabel then filed a comprehensive jurisdictional plea. The trial court denied the plea. In this interlocutory appeal, Port Isabel argues that Pinnel and SPI lack capacity to sue Port Isabel for any procedural irregularities and lack standing altogether. Port Isabel also argues SPI cannot accuse the city of violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act, because SPI is not an “interested person.” Finally, Port Isabel argues SPI’s claim under the Texas Public Information Act does not authorize a private party to seek declaratory or injunctive relief. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court finds first that capacity deals with a party’s legal authority to sue and be sued. It is not a jurisdictional matter, so the trial court did not err in denying Port Isabel’s plea to the jurisdiction for this reason. As for standing, the court finds that two requirements are necessary in this case for standing to be present: the ordinance must be void, and there must be a special burden placed on the plaintiff by the void ordinance. The court agrees that procedural irregularities could render and annexation ordinance voidable, but the ordinance would not be void; if a voidable ordinance is attacked, it must be by the state in a quo warrantor action. The court looks at the allegations made in Pinnel’s petition. He asserted that Port Isabel annexed areas outside its extraterritorial jurisdiction, not adjacent or contiguous to the existing city limits, with open (not-closed) boundaries, entirely within a body of water (though excluding some parts), and within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of another municipality. SPI adds that the ordinances annex more that is statutorily allowed, it attempts to annex territory in SPI’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, not within Port Isabel’s city limits and has an open boundary. The court confirms that, if proven true, the allegations made by both parties would establish that at least one of Port Isabel’s annexation ordinances is void. As all the other annexations orders are reliant on the others, they could all be void, and the court finds this portion of the standing test met. Turning to the special burden requirement, the court concludes that if the ordinances are allowed to stand, Pinnel will be taxed by Port Isabel, and SPI’s extraterritorial jurisdiction will be annexed. Consequently, both have shown a special burden, and both have standing to sue. The court disagrees with Port Isabel’s assertion that, even if Pinnel and SPI have standing to challenge some of the ordinances, they can’t challenge them all. “On its own, ordinance 657 would not have imposed a special burden on Pinnel and SPI because, on its own, ordinance 657 would be void. The validity of ordinance 657 depends on the validity of the other ordinances that extended Port Isabel’s city limits to the shores of the Island. Without these ordinances, ordinance 657 would be of no effect. We therefore conclude, as other courts have in similar situations, that the special burdens on Pinnel and SPI were imposed by not only ordinance 657 but by all the ordinances on which ordinance 657 depends.” The court finally confirms that SPI is an interested person who has standing to bring an action under the TOMA and the TPIA. OPINION:Garza, J.; Hinojosa, Rodriguez and Garza, 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.