Co-author Gunner West

Once again, a Texas court has barred a lawsuit because the plaintiff waited too long to file. And once again, perhaps, the suit was a Hail Mary after alternatives failed.

In Hobson v. Commissioners Court of Palo Pinto County, a court of appeals affirmed a judgment against a landowner because his declaratory judgment and injunction claims against a county commissioners court* were time-barred.  Also, a commissioners court cannot adjudicate private rights by “declaring” a road public and lacks authority to create a neighborhood road where the route is partly in another county.

The facts

Hobson’s family acquired the “Hobson Tract” in 1978. The access road to the tract (the red line on the map) crosses the Ezell Tract to a highway; 60 to 70% of the road lies in Palo Pinto County, while the Hobson Tract is entirely in Parker County. The Ezells’ predecessor blocked Hobson’s use of the road. The road remained blocked after the Ezells purchase.

In 2017, Hobson sued the Ezells in Parker County for a prescriptive easement. The trial court granted summary judgment aginst Hobson.

In 2021, Hobson asked the Palo Pinto Commissioners Court to declare the route public or, alternatively, create a neighborhood road. The Commissioners denied the application.

In 2022, Hobson sued the Commissioners alleging they failed to maintain a public road and sued had abused their discretion in denying his neighborhood-road request, and the Ezells to stop their obstruction of access to his property. The trial court denied Hobson’s claims against the Ezells and the claims against the Commissioners.

Limitations

The court applied Texas’ four-year residual statute of limitations. Because Hobson knew of the blockage no later than his January 2017 Parker County suit, his 2022 claims against the Ezells were untimely.

Continuing tort did not save the claims.

The Texas Supreme Court has “neither endorsed nor addressed” the continuing-tort doctrine; once injury and cause are known, the time within which the plaintiff must sue begins to accrue. Further, the statute of limitations exemption for suits against state and political subdivisions did not apply to a private plaintiff.

Commissioners had no authority

A commissioners court has implied power to make an administrative determination of a road’s public status only as a foundation for authorized county action, such as maintenance. That authority does not include resolving private rights, which must be adjudicated in a court of law.

Applying those principles, the court held the Palo Pinto Commissioners Court lacked jurisdiction and authority to declare the road public in order to resolve Hobson’s dispute with the Ezells; the proper vehicle is a declaratory judgment suit in a court of law.

No cross-county neighborhood road power

Because a commissioners court’s control is over roads in its own county, Palo Pinto County could not create a neighborhood road on a route that crosses into Parker County and serves property located entirely in Parker County.

Hobson presented an alternative interlocal-agreement theory (Trans. Code § 251.059; Gov’t Code ch. 791) that did not change the result. His application did not establish the authority to order creation of such a road, and the district court could not compel the Commissioners to do so.

*In Texas, the governing body of a county is the commissioners court. It is not a ”court” and they are not judges even though the head of the government is the “county judge”, who is not really a “judge” but exercises a judge’s jurisdiction … sometimes. Go figure! Its like Shohei Ohtani isn’t the second coming of Babe Ruth, but he acts like it … sometimes.

Your musical interludes:

Pertinent to the content,

Lagniappe .. not pertinent but good.