Case Number: 06-01-00012-CV 08/25/2004 Case stored in record room 08/19/2004 Mandate issued 07/02/2004 Opinion issued CA reversed and remanded to TC 07/02/2004 Court approved judgment sent to attys of record Document issued by the Supreme Court 07/02/2004 Order of the Court Issued Document issued by the Supreme Court 06/16/2004 Notice received 04/07/2003 Notice from Counsel of a change in address 02/19/2003 Created for Data Conversion -- an event inserted to correspond to the submitted date of a process 02/19/2003 Created for Data Conversion -- an event inserted to correspond to the submission date of a process 02/19/2003 Oral argument 02/13/2003 Electronic copies of brief posted to website 01/07/2003 Electronic copies of brief posted to website 12/20/2002 Electronic copies of brief posted to website 12/20/2002 Electronic copies of brief posted to website 12/12/2002 Petition for Review disposed Granted 12/12/2002 Set for Submission 12/12/2002 Amount of time allotted for oral argument. 12/12/2002 Cases consolidated by Supreme Court 12/12/2002 Petition for Review disposed Granted 10/08/2002 Amicus Curiae Brief received 10/07/2002 Response to Petition for Review filed 07/19/2002 Additional cites or additional authorities 07/17/2002 supplemental brief 07/16/2002 Brief filed. 06/27/2002 Brief filed. 06/07/2002 Record Received (See Remarks) 05/28/2002 Record Requested in Petition for Review 05/28/2002 Brief on the Merits Requested 04/23/2002 Case forwarded to Court 04/22/2002 Response to Petition for Review filed 04/15/2002 Notice requesting filing fee 04/15/2002 Appendix Filed 04/15/2002 Petition for Review filed OPINION
MidTexas Pipeline Company appeals the summary judgment granted in favor of Walter Roy Wright, III. MidTexas is a gas corporation with the right of condemnation under Tex. Util. Code Ann. §181.004 (Vernon 1998). MidTexas began negotiations with Wright to purchase an easement over his land for the purpose of building a natural gas pipeline.
After negotiations yielded no agreement, MidTexas filed a condemnation action pursuant to Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 21.012 (Vernon 1984). The trial court appointed special commissioners to assess damages. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 21.014(a) (Vernon 1984). The commissioners heard evidence and awarded damages, but Wright objected to the award. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §21.018(a) (Vernon 1984). Wright filed a counterclaim in which he requested the trial court to restore to him possession of the easement, award him damages for the unlawful taking of his property, and award him reasonable attorney's fees.
Wright filed a motion for partial summary judgment in which he contended the trial court did not have jurisdiction because MidTexas failed to comply with the jurisdictional prerequisites for filing a condemnation action. Specifically, Wright alleged MidTexas did not negotiate in good faith because its offer required him to grant MidTexas rights it could not obtain through condemnation. Wright also filed a plea to the jurisdiction that mirrored his arguments in his motion for partial summary judgment.
MidTexas filed a motion for partial summary judgment, in which it contended it met all the jurisdictional prerequisites to filing its condemnation action. With respect to Wright's allegation that it failed to negotiate in good faith, MidTexas contended the good faith requirement was satisfied when it made a bona fide offer it believed was the amount of compensation owed. *Page 213
The trial court granted MidTexas's motion for partial summary judgment and denied Wright's motion. Some time later, however, Wright reurged his plea, requesting the trial court to dismiss the suit, based on Hubenak. The trial court granted Wright's plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing MidTexas's condemnation action. The trial court then severed Wright's counterclaim, making its dismissal order a final, appealable order.
"The Texas land condemnation scheme is a two-part procedure involving first, an administrative proceeding, and then if necessary, a judicial proceeding." Amason v. Natural GasPipeline Co., 682 S.W.2d 240, 241 (Tex. 1984). When a governmental entity, or an entity with eminent domain authority, seeks to acquire real property for public use, but is unable to agree with the owner on the amount of damages, the entity may begin a condemnation proceeding by filing a petition in the proper court. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 21.012(a); Amason,682 S.W.2d at 241. Such a petition must (1) describe the property to be condemned, (2) state the purpose for which the entity intends to use the property, (3) state the name of the owner, if known, and (4) state that the entity and the landowner are unable to agree on damages. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 21.012(b).
When a party files such a petition, the trial court must appoint three special commissioners who assess the damages and file an award reflecting their opinions of the land's value. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 21.014(a); Amason, 682 S.W.2d at 241-42. If the condemnee is unsatisfied with the award, he or she may file an objection in the trial court. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §21.018(a); Amason, 682 S.W.2d at 242. The filing of an objection vacates the commissioners' award and, coupled with service of citation on the condemnor, forecloses reinstatement of the commissioners' award. Amason, 682 S.W.2d at 242. What had been an administrative proceeding converts into a cause of action with the condemnor as plaintiff and the condemnee as defendant.Id.
In its plea to the jurisdiction, Wright alleged MidTexas failed to meet the unable-to-agree requirement of Section 21.012(b). The attempt to agree is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the statutory proceedings. State v. Schmidt, 894 S.W.2d 543, 545 n. 1 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, no writ) (citing Brinton v. HoustonLighting Power Co., 175 S.W.2d 707, 709-10 (Tex. Civ. App.-Galveston 1943, writ ref'd w.o.m.)). The condemnor has the burden of proof on the unable-to-agree issue. Id. at 544.
On appeal, MidTexas contends it met the unable-to-agree requirement as a matter of law. We have this day released our opinion in No. 06-01-00010-CV, MidTexas Pipeline Co. v.Dernehl. Because the briefs and arguments are in all relevant respects the same as those raised in this appeal, for the reasons stated in that opinion, we affirm the trial court's judgment.