in Re H&S Hoke Ranch, LLC ( 2021 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-20-00237-CV
IN RE H&S HOKE RANCH, LLC
Original Proceeding
From the County Court at Law
Walker County, Texas
Trial Court No. 12831CV
O PI N I O N
H&S Hoke Ranch, LLC seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to set
aside an order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and motion to transfer pursuant to
Section 21.002 of the Property Code. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 21.002. We will
conditionally grant mandamus relief.
Breviloba, LLC instituted an action for condemnation in the county court at law
because it was seeking to build a pipeline across Hoke Ranch's property. The action
became judicial in nature when Hoke Ranch filed its objections to the award granted by
the commissioners. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 21.018. During the proceedings, Hoke
Ranch also filed counterclaims against Breviloba independent of its challenge to the
condemnation award asserting damages in excess of $13 million including a claim for
trespass with a resulting remedy of ownership for the portion of the pipeline built on
Hoke Ranch’s property of $4,018,523. 1 Hoke Ranch's plea to the jurisdiction and motion
to transfer alleged that because the amount in controversy for its counterclaims exceed
the county court at law's jurisdictional limit, the case should be transferred in its entirety
to the district court. Breviloba does not dispute that the counterclaims seek damages in
amounts that exceed the jurisdiction of the county court at law but contends that the
county court at law has jurisdiction over the counterclaims as part and parcel of the
eminent domain proceeding. Breviloba also contends that mandamus is not the
appropriate mechanism for Hoke Ranch to challenge the denial of the plea to the
jurisdiction and motion to transfer.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and is warranted only when the trial court
clearly abused its discretion and the relator has no other adequate remedy. In re Murrin
Bros. 1885, Ltd., 603 S.W.3d 53, 56-57 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding). In order to establish
its right to a writ of mandamus, Hoke Ranch has the burden to prove both of these
requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding)
(per curiam).
1We note this is a far different remedy than the damages that Hoke Ranch would be paid as a result of the
taking of its property as a result of an eminent domain proceeding. See State v. Carpenter, 126 Tex. 618, 89
S.W.2d 979 (Tex. 1936); see also TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. §21.042.
In re H&S Hoke Ranch, LLC Page 2
A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or
is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re
Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). "Similarly,
a trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to analyze or apply the law correctly." Id.;
see also In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)
("[A] trial court has no 'discretion' in determining what the law is or applying the law to
the facts." (quoting Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding))).
Subject-matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a court to decide a case.
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 553-54 (Tex. 2000); see also In re United Servs.
Auto. Ass'n, 307 S.W.3d 299, 309 (Tex. 2010) ("A judgment is void if rendered by a court
without subject matter jurisdiction."). Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and
may be raised at any point during the proceeding. Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d
88, 103 (Tex. 2012). Whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists is a question of law that we
review de novo. City of Houston v. Rhule, 417 S.W.3d 440, 442 (Tex. 2013) (per curiam).
"If an eminent domain case is pending in a county court at law and the court
determines that the case involves an issue of title or any other matter that cannot be fully
adjudicated in that court, the judge shall transfer the case to a district court." TEX. PROP.
CODE ANN. §21.002. Hoke Ranch argues that because its counterclaims implicate
ownership and exceed the court's jurisdictional limits, the counterclaims are a "matter
that cannot be fully adjudicated in that court." We agree.
In re H&S Hoke Ranch, LLC Page 3
Counterclaims, whether permissive or compulsory, must be within the trial court's
jurisdiction. Smith v. Clary Corp., 917 S.W.2d 796, 798 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam). A
counterclaim is not within the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction when the amount
in controversy exceeds the maximum jurisdictional limit of the court. Smith, 917 S.W.2d
at 798.
Generally, a trial court does not lose jurisdiction over a plaintiff's claim that is
properly within its jurisdictional limits simply because a defendant files a counterclaim
that exceeds the court's jurisdictional limits. See Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 338 (Tex.
2006) ("[I]t is proper for a trial court to dismiss claims over which it does not have subject
matter jurisdiction but retain claims in the same case over which it has jurisdiction.").
However, in this circumstance where the counterclaims cannot be fully adjudicated by
the county court at law, the Property Code requires a different procedure; that is, the
county court at law is statutorily required to transfer the case to the district court, which
has concurrent jurisdiction of eminent domain proceedings with the county court at law
and also has jurisdiction of counterclaims over which the county court at law does not.
See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 21.002; see also In re Riley, 339 S.W.3d 216, 221 (Tex. App.—
Waco 2011).
Breviloba argues that Hoke Ranch has not established that it has no adequate
remedy by appeal and thus mandamus is inappropriate. "The adequacy of an appellate
remedy must be determined by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the
In re H&S Hoke Ranch, LLC Page 4
detriments." In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (citing In re Prudential
Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004)). Balancing these interests, it has been held
that "mandamus relief is appropriate to 'spare private parties and the public the time and
money utterly wasted enduring eventual reversal of improperly conducted
proceedings.'" In re John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Mem'l Found., 315 S.W.3d 519, 523 (Tex.
2010) (quoting In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136). We have previously held that Property
Code Section 21.002's transfer provision is mandatory. See In re Riley, 339 S.W.3d at 221.
Having concluded that the county court at law in which the case is pending does not have
subject matter jurisdiction over Hoke Ranch's counterclaims because Hoke Ranch alleges
an amount in controversy in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the county court at law,
mandamus relief is appropriate to spare the parties and the public the time and money
spent on fatally flawed proceedings in the county court at law.
Therefore, we conditionally grant mandamus relief and direct the trial court to
vacate its order denying Hoke Ranch's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to transfer
signed by the trial court on August 17, 2020 and to grant the plea to the jurisdiction and
motion to transfer the case to the district court within twenty-one days of this opinion. A
writ will issue only if the trial court fails to act in accordance with this opinion. The order
granting the emergency stay entered by this Court on September 9, 2020 is hereby lifted.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
In re H&S Hoke Ranch, LLC Page 5
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Neill, and
Visiting Justice Rose[2]
(Justice Neill dissenting)
Petition conditionally granted
Opinion delivered and filed May 28, 2021
[OTO6]
The Honorable Jeff Rose, Visiting Justice, sitting by assignment. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 74.003,
[2]
75.002, 75.003.
In re H&S Hoke Ranch, LLC Page 6