Charles Anthony Allen, Sr. v. Kimberly Nunez
Date Filed2010-12-29
Docket04-10-00309-CV
Cited0 times
StatusPublished
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
OPINION
No. 04-10-00309-CV
Charles Anthony ALLEN, Sr.,
Appellant
v.
Kimberly NUNEZ, FNU Garza, and George Barrera,
Appellees
From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas
Trial Court No. 09-10-00146-CVK
Honorable Ron Carr, Judge Presiding 1
Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 29, 2010
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Charles Anthony Allen, Jr. appeals the order dismissing his case for failure to plead a
case within the jurisdictional limits of the district court. We reverse and remand.
1
Senior Appellate Judge sitting by assignment.
04-10-00309-CV
BACKGROUND
Allen is an inmate housed in the Dalhart Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice (āTDJCā). Allen filed suit against Kimberly Nunez, FNU 2 Garza, and George Barrera,
employees of TDJC, claiming they lost or stole his personal property when he was previously
transferred from the Connally Unit to the Luther Unit. Allen valued the property at $295.
Appellees filed an answer and a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that the damages sought
by Allen were not within the jurisdictional limits of the district court. The trial court granted the
plea and dismissed Appellantās petition for lack of jurisdiction. Allen filed this appeal and
contends that the minimum jurisdictional limit for lawsuits in district court is $200.01.
Appellees argued in the trial court that the minimum jurisdictional limit was $500. However,
appellees now agree with Allen that the minimum jurisdictional limit of the district court is
$200.01.
DISCUSSION
Whether a plaintiff has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate a trial courtās subject
matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. Frost Natāl Bank v. Fernandez, 315
S.W.3d 494, 502(Tex. 2010). Although both Allen and the Appellees agree that the district court has jurisdiction over Allenās claim, we must determine the issue because jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement. Burke v. Satterfield,525 S.W.2d 950, 953
(Tex. 1975); Walls Regional Hosp. v. Altaras,903 S.W.2d 36, 40-41
(Tex. App.āWaco 1994, no writ).
Until 1985, both the Texas Constitution and the civil statutes expressly conferred
jurisdiction in district courts for cases with a minimum of $500.00 in controversy. TEX. CONST.
art. V, Ā§ 8 (1876); TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 1906(6) (1925), repealed by Act of May 17,
1985, 69th Leg., R.S. ch 480, Ā§ 26(1), 1985 TEX. GEN. LAWS 1720, 2048. When article 1906
2
The initials āFNUā commonly refer to a person whose first name is unknown.
-2-
04-10-00309-CV
was codified it no longer included the $500.00 minimum amount and instead provides that
district courts have jurisdiction as provided by Article V, section 8 of the Texas Constitution.
TEX. GOVāT CODE ANN. Ā§ 24.007 (West 2004). At the time of the codification, Article V, section
8 of the Texas Constitution provided that a district courtās minimum jurisdiction was $500.00.
However, a few months later the Texas Constitution was amended and the jurisdictional
minimum was deleted. As amended Article V, section 8 now provides, in pertinent part:
District Court jurisdiction consists of exclusive, appellate, and original
jurisdiction of all actions, proceedings, and remedies, except in cases where
exclusive, appellate, or original jurisdiction may be conferred by this constitution
or other law on some other court, tribunal, or administrative body.
TEX. CONST. art. V, Ā§ 8.
After the constitutional amendment, some courts of appeals have determined the
jurisdictional limit is $200.01, while others have continued to require a $500.00 minimum
amount in controversy. Compare Acreman v. Sharp, 282 S.W.3d 251, 255-56(Tex. App.ā Beaumont 2009, no pet.)(holding express language of Government Code and Constitution provides trial court has jurisdiction over case in which amount in controversy was over $200.00), Ramirez v. Dietz, No. 07-04-0108-CV,2006 WL 507947
, at *2 (Tex. App.āAmarillo Mar. 1, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.), Arteaga v. Jackson,994 S.W.2d 342, 342
(Tex. App.āTexarkana 1999, pet. denied)(holding after the 1985 constitutional and statutory amendments, district courtās jurisdiction extends to cases involving more than $200.00), Moore v. TDCJ-CID, No. 13- 04-425-CV,2005 WL 1797077
at *2, (Tex. App.āCorpus Christi July 28, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that āminimum amount needed to invoke the jurisdiction of the district court is $500ā) and (holding minimum amount in controversy required for district court jurisdiction is $200.01), and Le Clair v. Wood, No. 10-04-00232-CV,2005 WL 1303187
, at *2 (Tex. App.ā
Waco June 1, 2005, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding that the amount-in-controversy requirement
-3-
04-10-00309-CV
for district court subject matter jurisdiction is $500.00) with Chapa v. Spivey, 999 S.W.2d 833,
836 (Tex. App.āTyler 1999, no pet.) (holding that despite 1985 amendments, minimum
jurisdictional amount remains $500.00). This court has not previously ruled on this issue.
When interpreting statutes we turn to the āplain and common meaning of the statuteās
words.ā McIntyre v. Ramirez, 109 S.W.3d 741, 745(Tex. 2003); see also TEX. GOVāT CODE ANN. Ā§ 311.011 (West 2005). The Texas Supreme Court has stated that āwhen the language of a code provision is clear and unambiguous, it controls even though it was enacted as part of the Legislatureās ongoing statutory revision and even though it may effect a change in the law.ā Continental Cas. Ins. Co. v. Functional Restoration Assoc.,19 S.W.3d 393, 399
(Tex. 2000). Likewise, ā[w]hen interpreting our state Constitution, we rely heavily on its literal text, and are to give effect to its plain language.ā Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz,940 S.W.2d 86, 89
(Tex. 1997)(citations omitted); see also Stringer v. Cendant Mortg. Corp.,23 S.W.3d 353, 355
(Tex. 2000).
Utilizing these rules of construction, we agree with the courts that have determined that
the district courtās jurisdiction is invoked when the amount in controversy is $200.01 or more.
See Acreman, 282 S.W.3d at 255-56; Ramirez,2006 WL 507947
, at *2; Arteaga,994 S.W.2d at 342
;. Currently, neither the Texas Constitution nor the Government Code set a minimum jurisdictional limit for district courts. CONST. art. V, Ā§ 8; TEX. GOVāT CODE ANN. Ā§ 24.007 (West 2004). As discussed by the Beaumont court of appeals in Acreman, the express language of article V section 8 of our Constitution confers jurisdiction in the district court over all cases except where exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred on some other court, tribunal, or administrative body. TEX. CONST. art. V, Ā§ 8; see Acreman,282 S.W.3d at 255-56
. The Texas
Constitution vests jurisdiction in the justice of peace courts for any controversy of $200.00 or
-4-
04-10-00309-CV
less. TEX. CONST. art. V, Ā§ 19; see Acreman, 282 S.W.2d at 255-56. Therefore, based on the
plain language of section 24.007 of the Government Code and article V, section 8 of the Texas
Constitution, we hold the district court has jurisdiction in a case in which the amount in
controversy is $200.01 and above. See Acreman, 282 S.W.2d at 255-56; Ramirez, 2006 WL
507947, at *2; Arteaga,994 S.W.2d at 342
. Accordingly, we reverse the order of dismissal and
remand for further proceedings.
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
-5-
No. 04-10-00309-CV
Charles Anthony ALLEN, Sr.,
Appellant
v.
Kimberly NUNEZ, FNU Garza, and George Barrera,
Appellees
From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas
Trial Court No. 09-10-00146-CVK
Honorable Ron Carr, Judge Presiding
BEFORE JUSTICE SIMMONS, JUSTICE HILBIG, AND JUSTICE BARNARD
In accordance with this courtās opinion of this date, the trial courtās order of dismissal is
reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings. Costs of the appeal are taxed
against Appellees, Kimberly Nunez, FNU Garza, and George Barrera.
SIGNED
_____________________________
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice