Opinion
No. 10-02-00154-CV
Opinion delivered and filed July 7, 2004.
Appeal from the 18th District Court, Johnson County, Texas, Trial Court # C200100264.
Reversed and remanded.
Jerry R. Hoodenpyle, Hoodenpyle Lobert, P.C., Arlington, TX, for appellant/relator.
Ronald D. Gray, Geary, Porter Donovan, P.C., Addison, TX, and Robert A. Mott and Joseph T. Longoria, perdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins Mott, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for appellee/respondent.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court dismissed the City of Cleburne's suit against the Central Appraisal District of Johnson County, the Appraisal Review Board, and One Cobblestone Village, Ltd., a taxpayer, for want of jurisdiction. Because the City has demonstrated the basis for jurisdiction, we will reverse the order.
In July of 2000, the Appraisal District agreed with Cobblestone to set the appraisal value of an apartment complex in Cleburne at $7,601,785. In January of 2001, Cobblestone filed a motion with the Review Board to correct a "substantial error" in the appraisal. In April, the Review Board heard the motion, and on May 1, 2001, reduced the value of the property to $4,200,000. The City was not notified of that hearing.
After the District and the Board refused to set aside the May 1 order, the City filed suit in the 18th District Court of Johnson County, seeking an injunction to prevent implementation of the order, which it characterizes as "void," and to compel the District to comply with the Tax Code. The District and the Board filed a plea to the jurisdiction. Cobblestone filed a separate plea to the jurisdiction. The court's global order dismisses the City's cause of action with prejudice, removes it from the docket of the court, taxes costs against the City, and denies all relief not specifically granted.
A plea to the jurisdiction challenges the trial court's authority to determine the subject matter of a cause of action. City of Dayton v. Gates, 126 S.W.3d 288, 289 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2004, no pet. h.) (citing Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000)). The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law; thus, we review de novo the trial court's ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction. Id. In deciding a plea to the jurisdiction, we may not weigh the claims' merits but must consider only the plaintiff's pleadings and the evidence pertinent to the jurisdictional inquiry. County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex. 2002).
Section 24.119 of the Government Code creates the 18th District Court. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 24.119 (Vernon 2004). Article 43.01 of the Tax Code authorizes the City to sue the Appraisal District to compel it to comply with the Code. Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 43.01 (Vernon 2001). The Supreme Court has pointed out that a district court in Texas is a court of general jurisdiction. Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71, 75 (Tex. 2000). The jurisdiction of a district court "consists of exclusive, appellate, and original jurisdiction of all actions, proceedings, and remedies, except in cases where exclusive, appellate, or original jurisdiction may be conferred by this Constitution or other law on some other court, tribunal, or administrative body." Id. (citing TEX. CONST. art. V, § 8). By statute, district courts have "the jurisdiction provided by Article V, Section 8, of the Texas Constitution." Id. (citing TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 24.007 (Vernon 2004)). A district court "may hear and determine any cause that is cognizable by courts of law or equity and may grant any relief that could be granted by either courts of law or equity." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 24.008 (Vernon 2004). For "courts of general jurisdiction . . . the presumption is that they have subject matter jurisdiction unless a showing can be made to the contrary." Dubai Petroleum, 12 S.W.3d at 75.
The City has asserted a claim against the District to compel compliance with the Tax Code, a claim against the Board to prevent enforcement of an order claimed to be void, and a claim against Cobblestone as a party whose rights would be affected by the judgment. Without regard to whether the claims have merit, we believe that the district court had jurisdiction of them. We reverse the trial court's Order of Dismissal and remand the cause for further proceedings.