The 15th Court of Appeals has affirmed a Bexar County district court order denying TxDOT’s plea to the jurisdiction in a case involving the construction of a plat that TxDOT asserted grants the agency part of a landowner’s property a public right-of-way for highway expansion.
Marc Williams, In His Official Capacity as Executive Diretor of the Texas Department of Transportation; and Kyle Madsen, In His Official Capacity as the Director of the Right of Way Division of the Texas Department of Transportation v. MMP Properties LLC (No. 15-24-00105; July 10, 2025) arose from a dispute between TxDOT and a developer of property located on Loop 1604 in the City of Converse. Seeking to develop 17 acres on the loop, MMP commenced the platting process but subsequently learned that TxDOT may seek to condemn some of the property for expansion of the loop. MMP sent a survey to TxDOT and requested the agency to put its future right-of-way for the loop on the survey. TxDOT complied, and MMP submitted a plat dividing the property binto seven lots. The city approved the plat in 2017 and MMP recorded it in the Bexar County plat records. The plat stated that MMP “dedicate[d] to the use of the public all streets, alleys, watercourses, drains, easements, and public places.” It further indicated a dedication of over four acres of Lot 7 as a right-of-way for public use, anticipating TxDOT acquisition in the future.
Three years later, TxDOT notified MMP that it would commence the expansion project and offered about $800,000 for Lot 7. MMP countered for over $3.7 mllion. After a delay in the project brought about by a budget shortfall, the project recommenced in 2022 with the same offer and counteroffer on the table. But this time TxDOT took the position that the plat dedicated Lot 7 for public use, so TxDOT didn’t have to buy it. TxDOT rescinded its offer and ordered MMP to remove any improvements on Lot 7 within 30 days. MMP immediately sought declaratory relief, contending that the plat did not dedicate Lot 7 for public use, and a TI stopping the agency from proceeding with the project. TxDOT filed a plea to the jurisdiction on the basis of sovereign immunity. In the alternative, TxDOT intervened seeking to condemn Lot 7. MMP moved for summary judgment and challenged the plea to the jurisdiction. TxDOT responded to the MSJ and filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court denied TxDOT’s motion to dismiss, granted MPP’s MSJ, and rendered declaratory judgment in favor of MMP. TxDOT sought interlocutory relief.
In an opinion by Justice Farris, the court of appeals affirmed. First, MMP contended that the court had no jurisdiction because TxDOT officials, not the agency itself, filed the plea to the jurisdiction. The court brushed this aside, reiterating a prior decision holding that a plea filed by agency officials in their official capacities is in effect a plea filed by the agency. The court further pointed out that it had jurisdiction anyway, since § 51.014(a)(8), CPRC, confers interlocutory jurisdiction to determine whether TxDOT employees are protected by sovereign immunity against ultra vires claims (which MMP asserted here).
The court then turned to the state’s argument that MMP’s plat gave the state a superior right to possession of Lot 7s and that TxDOT’s officials’ acceptance of MMP’s offer of public dedication was within their authority. As an initial matter, the court determined that the Declaratory Judgment Act did not waive TxDOT’s sovereign immunity because MMP did not challenge the validity of an ordinance or statute. Ultra vires claims, however, must be brought against government officials and must seek prospective injunctive remedies. Consequently, sovereign immunity does not bar those claims since the remedy is to bring government officials into compliance with their applicable legal authority. The court held that MMP had “sufficiently presented evidence to demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction over an ultra vires claim” because the TxDOT officials asserted as a matter of law that MMP’s plat offered to publicly dedicate Lot 7. As TxDOT argued and the court concurred, MMP’s suit was in the nature of a trespass to try tile action asserting “that the TxDOT Officials wrongfully asserted a state right of way on Lot 7.”
Simpy put, the issue in the case was whether state officials acted within their legal authority by claiming title or possession of Lot 7. If the evidence raised a fact question as to whether MMP offered to publicly dedicate the property, the trial court had jurisdiction to resolve that question. Here the parties disputed whether MMP made an express or implied offer to dedicate Lot 7 and whether TxDOT accepted the offer. Examining the text of the plat, the court concluded that its “express declarations . . . lead to potentially contradictory conclusions: while some portions of the plat express public dedication, other portions suggest a public dedication is anticipated in the future.” In other words, “the statements in the plat leave material matters open for future adjustment,” like an “unenforceable ‘agreement to agree.’” That determination, consequently, must be left to the fact finder. The trial court thus correctly denied the TxDOT Officials’ plea to the jurisdiction.
The remainder of the opinion dealt with TxDOT’s contention that extrinsic evidence, such as city regulations, what other governmental entities have done with respect to utility easements on Lot 7, and other external evidence of MMP’s “intent,” indicated MMP’s intention to dedicate Lot 7. TxDOT also argued that MMP sold two other lots “in reliance on the dedication of Lot 7” because they would be adjacent to the highway after TxDOT expanded it. But this evidence “at most raise[d] a fact issue on MMP’s intent.” Finally, the court concluded that TxDOT did not waive sovereign immunity by asserting an alternative plea to condemn the property under Chapter 21, Property code. Chapter 21 gives the state “the right to urbe alternative and inconsistent remedies in the same cause and have both matters determined in one proceeding and at one time” (citation omitted). TxDOT’s Chapter 21 counterclaim “did not initiate litigation so as to trigger a waiver of immunity.”
It will be interesting to see what the Bexar County district court that denied TxDOT’s plea to the jurisdiction will do now that it’s ruling has been vindicated. It may be the better part of valor at this point to settle the matter by condemnation, since litigating what appears to be an ambiguous “dedication” of right-of-way might yield an answer the agency might not like in the future. Either way, developers and landowners will undoubtedly look to MMP’s plat language and the court’s opinion for guidance in future dealings with TxDOT that involve dedications of parts of their properties for public use.
