TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-12-00031-CV
Rudy Lopez, Appellant
v.
Mary Soto and Ascension Soto, Appellees
FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF RUNNELS COUNTY
NO. 3109, HONORABLE BARRY HILLIARD, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following a jury verdict in favor of Mary and Ascension Soto on a breach of contract
claim, the trial court awarded the Sotos damages in the amount of $8,500, plus attorney’s fees of
$12,000 and prejudgment interest of $652. Rudy Lopez appeals, seeking a dismissal of the Sotos’
claims, arguing the amount in controversy was above the county-court’s jurisdictional limits.
Subject-matter jurisdiction being a question of law, we affirm the trial court’s judgment having
reviewed the issue de novo.1 See Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226
(Tex. 2004).
DISCUSSION
This appeal involves a suit for damages arising from Lopez’s repairs on the roof of
the Sotos’ home. In September 2010, the Sotos filed suit against Lopez in Runnels County Court
1
The parties are familiar with the facts, procedural history, and applicable standards of
review. Accordingly, we will not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the
Court’s decision and the basic reasons for it. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
for breach of contract, violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraud. Making only
minimal changes, they later filed their first amended petition. Non-suiting their fraud claim, the
Sotos proceeded to trial on the remaining causes of action. Based on the jury’s findings, the trial
court in November 2011 awarded the Sotos damages in the amount of $8,500 for breach of contract
and attorney’s fees of $12,000, plus prejudgment interest. Raising the issue for the first time in this
appeal, Lopez now asserts the judgment should be reversed and the cause dismissed because the
total damages award of $20,500 deprived the county court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
In civil cases in Runnels County, county courts have concurrent jurisdiction with
justice courts in which the matter in controversy exceeds $200 in value but does not exceed $10,000,
exclusive of interest, and concurrent jurisdiction with district courts in which the matter in
controversy exceeds $500 but does not exceed $5,000, exclusive of interest. See Tex. Gov’t Code
§ 26.042(a), (d). For jurisdictional purposes, attorney’s fees are included in the amount in controversy.
See Johnson v. Universal Life & Accident Ins. Co., 94 S.W.2d 1145, 1146 (Tex. 1936).
Subject-matter jurisdiction is based on the petition’s allegations about the amount in
controversy. See Continental Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444, 449 (Tex. 1996); see
also Richardson v. First Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 419 S.W.2d 836, 839 (Tex. 1967) (plaintiff’s petition
must state facts affirmatively showing court’s jurisdiction); Buethe v. O’Brien, No. 03-09-00363-CV,
2010 WL 2643087, at *5 (Tex. App.—Austin June 30, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (jurisdictional
statute for county-courts-at-law values matter in controversy on amount of damages alleged by
plaintiff). A plaintiff’s petition must contain a statement that the damages sought are within the
court’s jurisdictional limits. Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(b). Moreover, “allegations of the plaintiff's petition
must state facts which affirmatively show the jurisdiction of the court in which the action is
2
brought.” United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Brite, 215 S.W.3d 400, 402 (Tex. 2007) (quoting Richardson,
419 S.W.2d at 839). However, without more, a plaintiff’s failure to state the jurisdictional amount
in controversy in its petition will not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. See Peek v. Equipment
Serv. Co., 779 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Tex. 1989) (“[W]e must presume in favor of the jurisdiction unless
a lack of jurisdiction affirmatively appears on the face of the petition.” (citation omitted)).
The Sotos’ original and amended petitions contained the statement that “the subject
matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this court”; yet, in their request for
damages, the Sotos did not state a specific amount. Instead, the Sotos alleged that, in July 2007,
Lopez bid $4,250 to repair their roof; in May 2008, the two parties entered into a contract that
mirrored Lopez’s bid. Additionally, the Sotos alleged that, after being informed their roof was
uninsurable because it did not have decking under the layer of shingles that Lopez had installed in
June 2008, they retained legal counsel who sent Lopez a letter dated June 29, 2010, demanding
$8,985 in damages to replace the roof and lay proper decking. They also requested all “reasonable
and necessary attorney’s fees incurred” on their behalf.
In both petitions, the allegation that the Sotos sent Lopez a letter demanding $8,985
in damages is an allegation setting forth an amount of damages within the court’s jurisdictional
limits. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 26.042(a). These allegations do not affirmatively demonstrate an
absence of jurisdiction, and a liberal construction of the pleadings in favor of jurisdiction is
appropriate. See Continental Coffee, 937 S.W.2d at 449; Peek, 779 S.W.2d at 804; Buethe, 2010
WL 2643087, at *4–5.
As a general rule, once jurisdiction is lawfully and properly acquired, no later fact or
event can defeat the court’s jurisdiction. See Continental Coffee, 937 S.W.2d at 449. If a plaintiff
3
seeks an amount of damages that is within the court’s jurisdiction and also makes a claim for
reasonable attorney’s fees in an unspecified amount, the failure to allege the specific amount does
not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction even if the fees would likely increase the amount above the
court’s jurisdictional limits. See Whitley v. Morning, 814 S.W.2d 537, 538 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1991,
no writ) (request for $4,500 in damages plus “reasonable attorney’s fees” did not exceed $5,000
jurisdictional limit of county court). Subject-matter jurisdiction having been lawfully and properly
acquired in this case, the trial court was not deprived of jurisdiction, even though the amount of
attorney’s fees ultimately awarded by the jury increased the amount in controversy above the
county court’s jurisdictional limit. See Continental Coffee, 937 S.W.2d at 449; see also Whitley,
814 S.W.2d at 538. Lopez’s single issue on appeal is overruled.
CONCLUSION
Having overruled Lopez’s only issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
__________________________________________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field
Affirmed
Filed: July 2, 2014
4