Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
the Town of Double Oak v. Michael McDaniel
Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-09-00046-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; August 20, 2009; Texas; State Appellate Court
The Town of Double Oak appealed a trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a case brought by Michael McDaniel. McDaniel sought declaratory judgments claiming he was overcharged for building permit fees and a sewer connection fee, requesting refunds for these overcharges. Double Oak asserted governmental immunity from these claims, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to this immunity. The court's review of governmental immunity is a question of law, evaluated de novo, focusing on whether the plaintiff's pleadings demonstrate jurisdiction. A plaintiff must allege facts affirmatively showing the court's jurisdiction, which the court will construe liberally in their favor. If the pleadings do not establish jurisdiction but show no incurable defect, the plaintiff may amend. Governmental immunity consists of immunity from suit and immunity from liability. Immunity from suit prevents a lawsuit unless expressly permitted by the legislature, while immunity from liability is an affirmative defense. McDaniel’s claims center on his assertion that he was improperly charged for his pro-rata share of sewer line costs and building permit fees exceeding $36,930. He contends he should have been billed $38,775 for the sewer connection, but Double Oak charged him $42,649.49 by mistakenly adding administrative costs rather than deducting them. Despite notifying Double Oak's mayor of the error, McDaniel was told to pay the inflated amount to proceed with his development. The appellate court ultimately reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case. McDaniel claims that Double Oak overcharged him $48,855.50 for a Storage Facility Building Permit, specifically alleging that they charged him $36,930 more than permitted by incorrectly categorizing all four buildings as commercial. He asserts that this overcharging has financially harmed his ability to operate the facility. McDaniel seeks declaratory relief regarding his rights under relevant municipal ordinances, claiming he is owed refunds for the overcharges. However, Double Oak argues that McDaniel's pleadings are essentially for monetary damages, not declaratory relief. The Declaratory Judgments Act (DJA) allows for declarations regarding municipal ordinances but waives immunity only for declarations of rights, not for damages. The municipality must be a party in such proceedings, and legislative consent is not needed for claims based on fraud, mutual mistake, or duress. McDaniel does not sufficiently allege these conditions, with his claims of financial damage not meeting the duress standard. Consequently, the court sustains Double Oak’s argument, reverses the trial court's denial of Double Oak’s plea to the jurisdiction, and remands McDaniel’s claims to the trial court for potential amendment.