Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1984 )

The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX
hguet 31. 1984
Attorney
General
SupruIn cowl BulldIng
HonorableGrant Joam Opinion No.JH-200
P. 0. Box 12s4s
*u*lln.T~ 78711. 2546 ChairMU
512/47$2m PlnatxcComittee Be: Whether a county may uac
Telex 9lom741387 Texao State Senate county lquipmantand machinery
1eieocplw SlzI47w266 P. 0. Box 12068.CapitolStation to uaiotain roads In rural
Austlu. Texan 78711 subdivirriooa
714Jackm.Sulle 700
oen*s. TX. 7s2024sos Dear SenatorJones:
2lu742e.944
You ark whether the Burnet County comiealonera court ray uac
county lqulp8ent and machinery to uriatalu roads lo rural
subdlvlaioaa. Parriculrrly.you aak the followlnSqueatlons:
1. Utlstaction 1s necessary to authorize a
county to maintain a roadway in a rural sub-
10011*xar,sun9700
dlvislonl’
Hour1on. lx. 77oQ2~111
71-
2. IIIthe fIllaS of a mbdivielon pkt vhlch
purport6 to ‘hereby dedicate the roeda. etreete.
ao806Broadw4y.sun4312 peeeagewl~re,end lll alleye ohown thereoa to the
Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 uri of .tlwpublic forever’sufficientto authorize
mw7476pI)
countyrdntesuuce of tho8e roadways?
008 N. TeMh, S&e B You inform UI that an lajunctloawas grented in 1971 prohibiting
l4cAnm. TX. 7sso14tlss the comlseloaera court of Bumet Comzty from udag county equlpmeut
s12a824547
and uchiaery to n&~taln private roada. Baaed 011this injunction.
Burnet.COMty kar ccfumcd:toulntaln roada ia rural aubdlvisionr.
Z$OOUrrOplurSUlt4400
qnAnlonb.TX. 78205.2707 Oa April 22, 1972, l lbdlvlaion plet waa filed purport&g to
s12J22m101 “herebydedicatethe reeds, ltreets,pamageueys, and a11 llleys showa
thereou to the use of the public forever.”
All qwlopplunlty/
Afflnnellw
Acllon Empbyet l%e Tcru Cuwtitutim authorizes the leglalatureto providefor
the conetructloarod rlntenence of public roads. See Tex. Coast.
art. VIII. 99; art. XI. 92; art. XVI, 924. Underthie grent of
authority, the lellelatureheo delegeted to coalreionerr courte the
generel pwer to “(llay out lud latabllsh. chanSe and diacontinua
public roada and hlghveys.” ludto “(e]xercleegeneral control over
ferries
all roads. highva:r``, end bridge6 la thclr countiee.” V.T.C.S.
art. 2351(3) and (6). In addition to theoe general powera.
comle8loner~ court8 are given further and more deteflcdpovcro over
HonorableCraat Jonas - Page i, (Jn-200)
the coaatructlonand maintenanceof public roads by the enactmentof
the County Road and Bridge Act. V.T.C.S.ert. 6702-l. The act glvaa
cmssionera court* luthorii:)! to
(1) uke and enforce all reasonable and
neceaaary rule* e~vlordere for the conatructlon
and uimteaauce of public road6 except ae
prohibitedby law;
(2) hire the labor and purchase the machinery
end equipment needed to conattuct and uintain
public roadr. . . ,
V.T.C.S.art. 6702-l. i2.002(1~).
In the exerkae of thio wthority , comlssioner~ court0 cannotgo
beyond the powers eitherexpr~csoly grantedor aeces~arllyimpliedfrom
the lenguegeof the grant. Canalesv. Laughlin. 214 S.U.2d 451 (Tex.
1948). Uhlle.coasliaaionere 'kurto have broad dlecretionIn exercising
powero expreaaly conferred on them. neverthelessthe beeis for any
action aunt be ultimatelyfcund in the conetltutlonor atatutea. -Id.
at 453.
Except in circumatancea not pertinenthere, comtisdoners courts
are not conetitutionally01: statutorilyauthorized to construct or
ulntain prlvete roada. Purthermore.case lav expresslyprohibit6the
use of "county kbor. utexals or equipment for other than public
uae.m Godley v. Duval Ceunl~!. 361 S.W.Zd 629. 630 (Tax. Civ. App. -
San Antonio 1962. mo writ). Since ao besiclfor the construction or
maintenanceof,priveteroada fs found.inthe conetltutlonor atetuteo.
the ctiedonero court mey not exerclae Mach power. .
..-
. Nowever. cdeioeere ceurte lre expreaaly authorized by the
County-Road and Bridge Act:to constxwct end uhtein public roaddr in
their countleo. The Tuam Iklpreme Court set out the bemlc principlea
for determiningvben a road becomes a public road, lteting:
All roado,vhl& have been laid out a nd latabllshed
by authority'of r:he camni~eioners'courte lre
$ubllc roada . . , . A road not orl@nally
.eotabli&edunder the statutemey become public by
long-continuedURIC end ldoptioe la euch by the
county comlulon~wa vith the laoent of the owner
et by preecript4an. A road may al80 become
public. in the aenee that the public have the
right to u#e it. by dedication.
p. 880
NonorablcCrent Jonas - Page 3 (JH-200)
Worthington
v. Wade. 17 S.U. 520. 521 (Tex. 1891). These principlea
have been carried forward into modern case law, and a-hat
elaborated.
Beelcelly.there are thr,eeway. a road may become public ouch
that a county till have luthority to uintein it. Firat. e road can
be latabllahedlb lnltloaa a public road upon a comlaoioners court's
ouu motim. Doughty 'I.DePec,,152 S.U.2d 404. 409 (Tex. Clv. APP. -
Amarillo 1941. writ ref'd v.<~.m.).or in rerpouse to an epplicatiou
thcreforby the requisite number of freeholderrunder the provleions
o f lrticle 6702-l - l procedure which requlrea coudemation and
avardlngof damage*.V.T.C.S.art. 6702-l. 812.003and 2.004. Second,
a public road may be estebll``hedby premrlptloo. In thla eituatlon.
It ia oecesseryto #how that an "uninterruptedu8er of the wey hes
been made by the ~public. uutler au adverse claim of right. for the
ltdutoty period of Ualtr,tion." Ladle.' Benevolent Society of
Beaumontv. UagnolicCmete`` Co.. 288 S.U. 812. 815 (Tat. Corn'''APP.
1926. judgrt adopted). PinaiK l road uy become a public road by
dedication.a setting epert by the fee owner for public use. and
acceptance. See Hellbron v., St. Louis SouthwesternRailway Co. of
Texas, 113 S.W.10. 612 (Tex: Clv. App. 1908).
Thus. In ansver to your f'lrst,
question.we concludethat e county
lo authoricedto maintain raalweya in rural lbdlvloiono if the roads
were eetabli~hedeb inltlo em public road8 by the coaisaiouers court,
by prescription.or by dedlumlon end lcceptance by the county.
You lleo ask whether the filing o f l subdivisionplat which
purporta to "dedlcate~the reeds. ,etreets. paaaagevaym and all
alleya ; . . to% the ~u#e Of the public forever" la aufflclent to
luthorlxe~c o untyuintauxicc o f th o r r o a dtm y aTo.effect l proper
dedlutkss-of .~knd.to public-or, -the owner umt uke l offer of
'dedlcatlon, uh$@;m8< be qwpted. There are tvo kinda of dedlutloo
- statutory.andcomon-hv.
A statutory de&atiom la 'one ude lo conformity vith the
provlaloasof the mtatuteacoaprioingTexas lubdlvioloncontrol. The
reylatory lchac dependsupnl the recordetloaof a developer'sup or
plat. Article 6626e. V.T.C.8.. providea that no plat of lny
mbdivlalon llull be filed rmleoe it lo luthorimd by the
coul~olonera amrt . After approvel.the plet lo filed In the office
of the county clerk of the county in vhlcb the land liea. Art. 6626a.
12. The edwloners court,la authoricedto vitbhold plat lpproval
If a mzbmlttedplet doea nolcmeet the rmqulreaantoof the act. Art.
6626e. 94. But. if the cam&aoionera court doem not dloapprove the
plat or doea not refuse to rwthorlre the filing of mch l plet in the
county elerk'e office vh~a deciding whether a plat “meet0 the
rcquiremente ae eet forth it1 this Act,” the comierionem court in
effect approvea the plet end authoriree its film whether it etemps
. e*,
NonoreblcGrant Jonee - Page 4 (Jll-200)
”
approved end luthorlaed” ou the plat or vhether it stamps “not
dleepprovedand not unauthorlxed”thereon. Attorney GeneralOpinion
Vu-1438 (1962).
If the 8ubdlvldercomplieswith the provleioueof article6626a.
em authoriced.fllirtS by the ctieelonere court become8 l “mere
~iulsterial duty, the perfc~tmanceof which may be compelled by
mNdaN8.” Coliedonere Caret 0. Frank Jester DevelopmentCo., 199
S.W.Zd 1004, 1007 (Ten.Civ. r$p. - Dallee 1947.writ ref’d n.r.e.1.
&WXI-~W dedication8are of two claoeea- crpreaaand i=pllad.
Ladlea’ Danevolent Society ,:I Beaumont v. llagoollaCemetery Co.,
maupra, at -814. In both. It ie neceeeary that there be en
appropriationof the had by the ovner to public use. ln the one cane,
by come esprea8 manlfestetlorof hio purpoee to devote the land to
public use; In the othr,.by eiomeact or course of conductfrom which
the law would imply +uch an kltent. Id. LonS-contlnueduae by the
public la mfflclmt to imply ,Bdedicaa by the ovner.Id. et 1007. An
lcuptame may he implied,for Inetance. from the cG&y’o feilure to
aeeeee ~for taee io. comecr::ion with “1eyinS Sea and water mains.
&mildl.nS-•ideval.ka.Gor
.gredislfor 8treete.”City of Waco v. Fenter,
m. et 63S. or uhere’.ecounty~makee repair8 upon *thestreet. or
: pIat it on.officialmap8. d1lder.v. City of Branbam~3 S.U. 309. 311
(TN. 18871. An wxe8tmce-bv al80 be irmlled fra lona-tlnued
public we-of the p&p&. /Ibert v. Gulf, C. 6 S.P. IteilGayCo.. 21
4.U. 779,:78o~(Tes. civ. *pp. - 1893, no writ).
BNM., .in l euer to your .eecond que8tion. the filinS of e
8ubdlvieion plat alone ie lneufflcient to luthorlae e county to
malntein road8 in rural 8ubd.ivlelooa,8lnce the dedication18 a mere
offer. M88lonera’ Court-v. Frank Jester DevelopmentCo., e.
et 1007.
in Buraet County,vbich prohibit8the
We note that the injuacc::lon
me of county equipment for,mdatenaoce of Private roada. doe8 not
llter the county’8authorityto maintain public roads.
p. 882
. I
HonorableGrant Jones - Page 18 (JH-200)
A ccm~lssioncrscourt may we county equipment
and uchincry to maintain roade in rural
eubdivleiono if th, roads were cetabliehed ab
lnitio ee public row16 by the coaaieaionerecourt.
by prcecriptlon,or by dedicationand acceptance.
UATTOX
AttorneyGeneral of Texas
TOM GREFaN
Firat Assistant AttorneyGenersl
DAVID R. RICRARDS
ExecutiveAesiatantAttorneyGeneral
Preparedby Rick Cllpln
Assietant AttorneyGeneral
APPROVED:
OPINION COMHITTEE
Rick Gilpin.Chairmen ,
David Brooks
Colln Carl
SUM0 Gmrison
Jim Woellinger
Nancy Sutton