The Austin Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court ruling that dismissed the director of the Texas Military Forces Museum from a lawsuit over a gift of WWI memorabilia.
Bruce Feltner v. Texas Military Department (No. 03-23-00653-CV; October 10, 2025) arose from a dispute over a donation of WWI artifacts to the Texas Military Forces Museum at Camp Mabry in Austin. Plaintiff’s grandfather gave Plaintiff the artifacts, which had belonged to Plaintiff’s great-grandfather. In 2015 Plaintiff’s father signed a deed of gift and donated the collection to the museum. The accession paperwork reflected that the Director of the Museum, Jeff Hunt, received the donation. Plaintiff found out about the donation in 2022 and contacted the museum to have it returned. Hunt explained that the gift was unconditional and wouldn’t be returned. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging conversion. Hunt and the Texas Military Department answered, alleging that Hunt was not a proper party under the Tort Claims Act and that TMD was entitled to sovereign immunity. TMD filed motion to dismiss Hunt, which the trial court granted. It then filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss and a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court likewise granted. Plaintiff appealed the ruling dismissing Hunt from the case.
In an opinion by Justice Kelly, the court of appeals affirmed. Plaintiff argued that the time Hunt accepted the donation, he worked for either the Museum, a 501(c)(3) organization, or the Texas Military Forces Historical Foundation, not the state. Consequently, he alleged, Hunt committed conversion in an individual capacity and has no immunity. Under § 101.106(e), CPRC, if a suit filed against both a governmental unit and any of its employees, the employees shall be dismissed on the motion of governmental unit. Filing such a motion “effectively confirms the employee was acting within the scope of employment and that the government, not the employee, is the proper party” (citation omitted). Plaintiff presented evidence that the Museum was not a subsidiary of the TMD but was part of a foundation that lost its charter in 2014, prior to Hunt’s acceptance of the gift. Plaintiff’s lawsuit, therefore, was not against a governmental unit and its employee because Hunt did not act in his official capacity when he refused to return the collection.
TMD responded by submitting its 2017 self-evaluation report to the Sunset Advisory Commission and its tax returns. Those documents showed that TMD controlled the Museum, Hunt was the manager of the Museum, TMD controlled the employment of Hunt, Hunt was a full-time employee of TMD and was paid with state funds, and the TMD controlled the Museum’s relationship with the Foundation. The question thus became whether the entity whose employee accepted the donation qualified as a “governmental unit” under the TTCA. According to the court, TMD did so qualify as “a state agency which derives its status and authority as such from statutes.” Additionally, one of TMD’s statutory duties was “to preserve all historically significant records or property in an institution—the Texas Military Forces Museum.” The Legislature enacted that statute in 2013, prior to the donation at issue in the case. TMD’s sunset report noted that Hunt worked for the garrison commander, who reports directly to the Adjutant General. In any event, the court concluded, TMD acknowledged Hunt as an employee when it filed a motion to dismiss under § 101.106(e).
