City of Houston v. James & Elizabeth Carlson

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that former condominium owners did not plead a viable inverse-condemnation claim based solely on the City of Houston’s allegedly improper procedure in ordering residents to vacate the complex. The court concluded that the owners challenged the enforcement process, rather than a property-use restriction or physical taking, so governmental immunity barred the suit. The court reversed the court of appeals and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff does not allege a regulatory taking by objecting only to the infirmity of the government's enforcement process, penalty, or procedure; the plaintiff must challenge a physical taking or a property-use restriction that is sufficiently onerous to be tantamount to an appropriation or ouster.
2. Because the owners failed to plead a taking, the constitutional waiver of governmental immunity for inverse-condemnation claims did not apply, and the City retained immunity from suit. The plea to the jurisdiction therefore had to be sustained and the case dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
3. The inverse-condemnation claim failed because the owners did not allege a taking, not because they had prevailed on a due-process claim. Due-process claims and takings claims are not mutually exclusive.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the owners adequately pleaded a taking supporting an inverse-condemnation claim when they challenged only the City's enforcement procedure and order to vacate, not any property-use restriction.
2. Whether the City's governmental immunity barred the inverse-condemnation action for want of a viable takings allegation.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded