A short one from the Texas Court of Appeals. As we noted in this post recently, Texas has bifurcated its eminent domain process. After a petition in condemnation is filed in court, in the "administrative" phase, the court appoints commissioners whose job it is to hold a hearing and render an opinion on value. If any party doesn't like commissioners' decision, the "judicial" phase commences and the more familiar process begins.
In In re Tarrant Regional Water District, No. 12-14-00329 (Feb. 11, 2015), the question was whether the court, in the administrative phase, has the obligation to appoint commissioners even where the court might agree with the property owner's contention that its property was immune from condemnation. The trial court refused to appoint commissioners, holding it would only do so after a hearing on whether the condemnor could legally take the property.
The court of appeals granted the condemnor's petition for a writ of mandamus, and held that during the administrative phase of an eminent domain case, the trial court has no power to not appoint commissioners. It ordered the trial court to appoint the commissioners and get out the way.
Like that earlier case we mentioned (which is now pending review by the Texas Supreme Court), the court of appeals concluded that during the administrative phase, the only duty or power of the trial court is to appoint commissioners. It can't make any determination about the power to take. Even, apparently, in cases like this where the property owner may have a good claim that the taking should not even be occurring.
The court of appeal shrugged off the argument that the condemnor lacked authority to take, and held it's not a judicial problem, at least not yet. So appoint the commissioners and let them have their hearing on value, and then if a party objects (what do you think the chances of the property owner here objecting to whatever value the commissioners assign, given that it doesn't even think its property should be taken at all, maybe 100%?) who then have a hearing on value. And only then does the trial court have jurisdiction to determine whether the condemnor can take the property.
That doesn't seem very efficient, nor does it square with our understanding that courts are not just potted plants when it comes to cases that are on their docket, and always have some kind of power to control them.
But what do we know - we're not from Texas.
In re Tarrant Regional Water District, No. 12-14-00329-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 11, 2015)
