State of Texas. V. Reimer et al. studied lawyer-nerdy questions of standing to bring a lawsuit and statutes of limitations as applied to inverse condemnation suits. Spoiler alert: To the chagrin of the landowners, waiting over 30 years to assert your takings claim is not the best course of action.
The facts
In 1965 the Sanford Dam created Lake Meredith, significantly reducing downstream flow of the Canadian River through the six-mile stretch at issue. The reduction exposed previously submerged land.
Beginning in 1982 the State granted oil and gas leases on portions of the riverbed to Huber. The 10-year leases were consistently renewed for decades with Huber establishing numerous productive wells. During the litigation Huber operated 21 wells in the area. The litigation began in 1993 when the State sued a Reimer forefather for trespass when he erected a fence blocking oil and gas lessee Huber’s access to producing wells. The Landowners asserted an unconstitutional taking of their oil and gas interests without compensation sometime between October 1999 and April 2000.
The Legislature at one time directed the GLO to make a survey marking the boundary of the river, which the GLO never did. Instead, Huber commissioned his own survey. In January 1982 Huber’s surveyor Shine filed his survey, which the GLO adopted. The survey identified the gradient boundary of the river locating the last natural riverbed before the dam’s completion. According to the Court, January 28, 1982, was the day when the State began taking the Landowners’ mineral interests.
Standing – constitutional or prudential?
The state challenged the Landowners’ standing to bring the suit on three grounds:
- they did not own the land when the taking occurred and had no assignment;
- existing mineral leases prevented the Landowners from developing minerals themselves;
- Huber acquired ownership through adverse possession, the Landowners had no compensable interest.
The Landowners satisfied constitutional standing by alleging concrete injuries to claimed property interests, traceable to the State’s conduct, with likelihood of redress through favorable judgment. Thus, the challenge was not to subject matter jurisdiction (Had the Court found there was none, it would be compelled to dismiss the case without addressing the merits).
The State’s challenge was to prudential jurisdiction because it involved the general prohibition on a litigant raising a claim on another person’s legal rights without proper assignment or authority. It is not standing as much as it is a substantive limitation on the landowner’s legal capacity. Regardless, the Landowners’ claim was barred as a matter of law.
Limitations
The Landowners’ claims were barred by limitations as a matter of law. Texas has no dedicated statute of limitations for inverse condemnation claims. Using the law of adverse possession as an analogy, Texas courts have concluded that inverse condemnation claims are barred by expiration of the 10-year limitations period in Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §16.026. The taking begins when the physical taking occurs or entry on land is made. The Landowners claimed the 25-year limitations in §16.028 governed. The 25-year limitations did not apply.
Simply put, the Court looked at the plain language of the two statutes and gave the unambiguous statutory language its plain meaning. The Court declined to judicially amend the statute by adding words that are not implicitly contained in the language of the statute.
The Court denied the Landowners’ aggregation theory (involving separate properties owned by different landowners) because it could lead to an absurd result.
The judgment
Reversing the trial court, the Court rendered judgment that the Landowners take nothing.
Your musical interludes, lady singers now and before. Pick as many as you want:
Calista Clark
Arleigh Kincheloe
The Castellows
Peggy Lee
Janice Joplin
Nina Simone
[View source.]
