Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Squaw Creek Downs owns real property within the City of Willow Park and is served by Willow Park’s municipal water and sewer utilities. Willow Park refused to provide water service to Squaw Creek because of allegedly unpaid bills. Willow Park filed a lien against the property for the unpaid amount. Squaw Creek disputed the validity of the charges and the lien. In anticipation of filing suit, Squaw Creek filed a petition under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 to depose Willow Park officials. Willow Park filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Willow Park says the trial court erred because the Water Code confers exclusive original jurisdiction on the city and exclusive appellate jurisdiction on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Squaw Creek counters that the trial court would have jurisdiction over a suit to test the validity of the lien filed against its property. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court confirms that Water Code 13.042 confers exclusive original jurisdiction over water service disputes to the municipality and exclusive appellate jurisdiction over such disputes to the TCEQ. The court also confirms that district courts generally have exclusive jurisdiction to determine title to real property, and that under Rule 202, a petition to depose must be filed in a proper court of any county where venue of the anticipated suit may lie or where the witness resides if no suit is anticipated. The court finds that a reasonable interpretation of “proper court” is a court with jurisdiction over the underlying dispute. Also, if a suit is not yet anticipated, a petitioner must state the reasons for seeking the testimony. Examining Squaw Creek’s petition, the court verifies that one of the reasons Squaw Creek wanted the officials’ testimony was to question the validity of the city’s lien. The court says it rejects the application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine in this case for three reasons: 1. Squaw Creek’s petition does not raise a complex problem that requires the input of administrative experts; 2. the trial court will not have to interpret the laws, rules and regulations of the city, the TCEQ or the Water Code; and 3. primary jurisdiction precludes a court from finally adjudicating a claim, pending agency review, but it does not necessarily apply to presuit discovery. OPINION:Gardner, J.; Holman, Gardner and McCoy, 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.