David G. Burnet
A man wrote an email to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission inquiring about the Commission’s interest in purchasing an 1836 letter in his possession allegedly written by Republic of Texas President David G. Burnet to Thomas Toby, whom the Legislature authorized to sell land scrip in New Orleans. Recognizing a missing link in a chain of communication between President Burnet and Toby regarding the scrip, the Commission informed the man that he illegally possessed a state record and commanded him to return it. When the man refused, the Commission brought suit to recover the letter and attorney’s fees pursuant to § 441.192, Government Code. The man responded by asserting various counterclaims, including constitutional and statutory takings claims and unjust enrichment. The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction as to the counterclaims. The trial court partially granted and partially denied the plea. The Commission sought interlocutory review.
These are the facts in Texas State Library and Archives Commission v. Corey Westmoreland (No. 03-22-00276-CV; March 22, 2024). In an opinion by Chief Justice Byrne, the court of appeals reversed the partial denial of the plea, affirmed the partial grant, and dismissed the counterclaims. The Commission first argued that Westmoreland’s constitutional and statutory takings claims were barred by sovereign immunity. Westmoreland countered that the Commission’s lawsuit “clouded his title” to the letter, making it impossible for him to sell it. The court took a dim view of this argument because the dispute in the case is whether the letter is in fact a state record. If it is, the law authorizes the Commission to sue to get it back. If it’s not, Westmoreland can do anything he wants with it. Citing an analogous SCOTX decision in which SCOTX held that a landowner who challenged the state’s claim of ownership of sand and gravel in a navigable waterway did not constitute a taking, the court reasoned that the only issue in this case was one of ownership, hence no takings claims could arise. The trial court thus lacked jurisdiction over those claims.
The court made quick work of Westmoreland’s unjust enrichment claim, observing that the Commission acted under its statutory authority and that Westmoreland failed to allege any facts that support the existence of any contractual, quasi-contractual, or implied contractual obligation arising from the recovery of a state record. In other words, Westmoreland failed to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity, so the trial court lacked jurisdiction over this claim as well. The trial court should likewise have dismissed Westmoreland’s declaratory judgment counterclaims to the extent that they sought more than a declaration of his rights under the statute authorizing the Commission to recover state records. The court further noted that Westmoreland did not assert a declaratory judgment claim challenging the constitutionality of that statute, a claim that would not have been barred by sovereign immunity.
The case will now return to the Travis County district court from whence it came for a determination of the ownership of the document and, if state ownership is determined, the amount of the state’s attorney’s fees.
