Breaking and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Friday Feb. 26 9 PM US EST to Saturday Feb. 27 6 AM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The city of Port Isabel passed a series of annexation ordinances between June 2003 and April 2004. Port Isabel borders a body of water known as the Laguna Madre. The city of South Padre Island is located on South Padre Island (the island). The Laguna Madre lies between Port Isabel and the island. The Pinnell property is located on the island, north of the city of South Padre Island. The Pinnell property is located approximately six miles across the Laguna Madre from Port Isabel. In June 2003, Port Isabel passed annexation ordinance No. 625. From July through November of 2003, Port Isabel passed three more ordinances, each designed to annex five-mile tracts located entirely in the Laguna Madre. The first of these was purported to be contiguous to that territory annexed by ordinance No. 625; the others annexed blocks of territory in a line extending toward the north, each contiguous to the next and gradually getting nearer to the Pinnell property. On Feb. 4, 2004, Port Isabel’s city manager sent Pinnell a notice that Port Isabel intended to annex the Pinnell property and that relevant hearings would be held on March 8 and 9, 2004. On Feb. 23, 2004, Pinnell requested South Padre Island to expand its extraterritorial jurisdiction to include the Pinnell property. South Padre Island accepted Pinnell’s request and on March 8, 2004, adopted ordinance No. 04-04 to accomplish the expansion. South Padre Island and Pinnell contend and the trial court found that ordinance No. 04-04 became effective on the date of Pinnell’s request, which was Feb. 23, 2004. On Feb. 24, 2004, Port Isabel adopted 17 new ordinances, Nos. 636-652, dealing with re-annexation of the territory in the Laguna Madre, steps Port Isabel took because of complaints that earlier annexations were done improperly. The last of these, ordinance No. 652, annexed territory that brought the Pinnell property within one mile of Port Isabel’s then-extended city limits, and consequently within its then extraterritorial jurisdiction. Because this action conflicts with rights alleged by South Padre Island over its extraterritorial jurisdiction as extended by ordinance No. 04-04, this dispute ensued. On March 29, 2004, Pinnell filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Port Isabel. Pinnell’s petition asked the court to declare Port Isabel’s annexation ordinances void ab initio, and the Pinnell property part of South Padre Island’s extraterritorial jurisdiction and therefore not subject to annexation by Port Isabel. Pinnell also sought injunctive relief, asking the trial court to permanently enjoin Port Isabel from enforcing existing ordinances and from enacting future annexation ordinances in the Laguna Madre and on the island. On April 1, 2004, South Padre Island joined the suit as an intervenor. Pinnell and South Padre Island claimed that various gaps and defects in legal descriptions made most of the annexations void. In response, Port Isabel passed more ordinances in an attempt to remedy those gaps and defects. On April 9 or 10, 2004, Port Isabel passed ordinance No. 657 to annex the Pinnell property itself. Validity of ordinance No. 657 depended upon the validity of the annexations of all the other re-annexation ordinances for contiguity to Port Isabel’s city limits. Pinnell and South Padre Island claimed that all the ordinances, including No. 657, were void for a variety of reasons. Pinnell and South Padre Island argued the Pinnell property already lay within South Padre Island’s extraterritorial jurisdiction at the time ordinance No. 657 was passed and that Port Isabel was precluded from accessing that property, regardless of the validity of the other ordinances. The trial court’s final judgment, finding in favor of Pinnell and South Padre Island on all claims, issued on April 6, 2005. The judgment provides that Port Isabel’s annexation ordinance Nos. 627, 628, 633, 636-652, 658-660 and 657 were void ab initio; the Pinnell property became a part of South Padre Island’s extraterritorial jurisdiction on Feb. 23, 2004; Port Isabel’s notices for meetings held Feb. 24 and April 7, 2004, failed to satisfy legal requisites; South Padre Island sued in good faith to enforce provisions of the Open Meetings Act; and Port Isabel was permanently enjoined from either enforcing these ordinances or enacting similar annexation ordinances in the future. This appeal ensued. HOLDING:Affirmed as modified. The court found that the trial court did not err in finding the legal descriptions to be defective, invalidating the ordinances and rendering them void ab initio, whether because they lacked a bearing source or because of other defects causing them and all ordinances dependent thereon for contiguity to Port Isabel to fail. Since an independent defect is alleged that No. 636, the first in the chain, failed to be contiguous to No. 625, all the annexation ordinances were necessarily void. Further, the court did not consider that a correction ordinance enacted some months later, even if effective to correct a defect, was effective to resurrect other dependent ordinances which were invalidated when the defective ordinance failed. Because Port Isabel’s five-mile and one-mile ordinances were void ab initio for other reasons, such that Port Isabel’s extraterritorial jurisdiction was not extended and its annexation of the Pinnell property by Port Isabel was never effected, the court declined to address the validity of South Padre Island’s ordinance No. 04-04. The court held for Port Isabel on one issue, stating that the trial court had no authority to invade the legislative functions of Port Isabel and erred by enjoining the future passage of annexation ordinances. OPINION:Castillo, J.; Valdez, C.J. and Ya�ez and Castillo, J.J.

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.