Jim Burgess v. City of Westworth Village

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________ No. 02-24-00252-CV ___________________________ JIM BURGESS, Appellant V. CITY OF WESTWORTH VILLAGE, Appellee On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022-000739-2 Before Kerr, Wallach, and Walker, JJ. Opinion by Justice Wallach  OPINION On occasion, to serve a public purpose, a citizen’s private property must be taken without his consent. We tolerate such intrusions because society cannot function without roads, schools, military facilities, and other vital infrastructure. Eminent domain also requires “just” or “adequate” compensation, to be sure. U.S. Const. amend. V; Tex. Const. art. I, § 17(a). But the condemnation process is complicated, time-consuming, and sometimes confusing. And no compensation can accurately value the sweat, tears, pride, love, beauty, and history that, for some property at least, is its chief value. A given exercise of eminent domain may turn out to be all for nothing, too. Grand plans can fail. Property may therefore be permanently damaged without purpose. These circumstances help explain why our law directs Texas courts to carefully scrutinize any exercise of eminent-domain authority. Condemnation is one area in which the government must turn sharp corners. It is a fit role for the judiciary to ensure that the government stays in its lane. Miles v. Tex. Cent. R.R. & Infrastructure, Inc., 647 S.W.3d 613, 632 (Tex. 2022) (Young, J., concurring) (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added). This is an eminent-domain case presenting an issue of first impression regarding the interplay between recent amendments to the Texas Constitution and Texas Government Code on one side, and the legislative deference rule on the other—indeed, a sharp corner in the eminent-domain process. Jim Burgess (owner) owns a home on land (the land) situated on the south side of the Hawks Creek Golf Course (golf course) that is owned and operated by the City of Westworth Village (City). Related to the condemnation of the land, City executed a ninety-nine-year lease of portions of the golf course facilities and the land—even without owning the land—with UnderPar Life, LLC (UPL), a private golf course 2 entertainment company, to operate and upgrade portions of the golf course facilities. Specifically, the land was to be developed by UPL as a “short-game practice area.” After UPL and City were unable to negotiate a purchase of the land from owner, City initiated condemnation proceedings (City’s last, rejected offer was $1,100,000). After a special commissioners’ proceeding concluded, owner rejected the special commissioners’ award of $1,545,500, and City proceeded with its suit to condemn the land. City moved for partial summary judgment to establish the liability elements of its eminent-domain claim, which was granted. In his First Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motion to Set Aside Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment, owner disputed the court’s subject matter jurisdiction by challenging the validity of City’s eminent-domain claim under Texas Constitution Article I, Section 17 and Texas Government Code Section 2206.001(b)(1)–(4). The trial court overruled the First Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motion to Set Aside Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment, leaving only the value of the land to be tried to a jury. After the jury determined the value of the land as $1,313,675, which was more than City had offered before initiating condemnation proceedings but less than the special commissioners’ award, the court entered judgment for City condemning the land for the amount found by the jury and granted owner’s request for court costs. Owner appealed. City cross-appealed challenging the award of costs to owner. We will reverse and remand. 3  I. Background It is uncontroverted that owner owns the land, a 3.548-acre tract. On September 7, 2021, City’s mayor issued a press release describing the overall transaction involved in this lawsuit. In this press release, City announced that it had been negotiating with UPL “behind-the-scenes” for eighteen months and would be unveiling the new plans for the golf course at a public hearing on September 14, 2021. Pertinent points in the release are: *City will lease the non-golf-course area—driving range, clubhouse, parking area, practice areas—to UPL on a ninety-nine-year lease, and City will continue to own and operate the golf course. *“Highlights” of the lease are: (1) UPL wil