First Court of Appeals in Houston
HOUSTON - An inverse condemnation claim brought by the African American Historic Preservation Committee has failed on appeal.
Court records show the committee, a non-profit organization, owns property in Texas City. On July 29, 2022, the city’s Fire Marshal sent a letter notifying the committee that the condition of its building was “unsafe” and a “substandard commercial structure” which violated sections of Texas City’s Fire Code and numerous ordinances.
An abatement order authorized demolition of the building “in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare” and on Aug. 11, 2022, the building was demolished.
The committee sued the state of Texas and Texas City for inverse condemnation, alleging that they had committed an unconstitutional taking under the Texas Constitution and a statutory taking under the Texas Government Code.
The committee also sought a declaratory judgment that the municipal court’s abatement order was void for lack of service, and therefore, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the committee.
In response, the state filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that the committee could not trace its injury to any action by the state because it took no role in the condemnation and abatement of the property, court records show.
Oct. 4, 2023, the trial court overruled the committee’s objections to the state’s evidence and entered an order granting its plea, leading the committee to appeal.
On May 28, the First Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling, holding that the trial court did not err in granting the state’s plea to the jurisdiction.
“Here, the only evidence suggesting the State took part in the abatement action was the abatement order, which was signed by the City Attorney,” the opinion states. “All of the other evidence before the trial court showed that the City acted alone, and that the State had no role in the abatement action.
“Because the Committee presented no more than a scintilla of evidence showing that the State took any part in the condemnation and demolition of its property … it failed to overcome the State’s jurisdictional challenge.”
Appeals case No. 01-23-00798-CV
