law-want-of-subject-matter-jurisdiction

law-subject-matter-jurisdiction-lacking

Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and it may be raised at any point in the proceeding. Alfonso v.
Skadden, 251 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam); OAIC Commercial Assets, L.L.C. v. Stonegate Village,
L.P., 234 S.W.3d 726, 735 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, pet. denied).

Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and can be raised at any time. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr.
at Dallas v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, 358 (Tex. 2004). Because the trial court lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction to enter the custody provisions in the 1999 divorce decree, it properly refused to enforce that
portion of the decree here.

“The absence of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised by a plea to the jurisdiction, as well as by other
procedural vehicles, such as a motion for summary judgment.” Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d
547, 554 (Tex. 2000). The plea to the jurisdiction standard mirrors that of a traditional motion for
summary judgment. See Ross v. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, L.L.P., 333 S.W.3d 736, 744 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.).

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Appellant contends the trial court erred in dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction because appellees
admitted in their responses to requests for admission that the court had jurisdiction. We disagree; subject-
matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by judicial admission. In re A.C.S., 157 S.W.3d 9, 15 (Tex. App.-Waco
2004, no pet.).

Appellees asserted in their plea to the jurisdiction that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction
because, inter alia, appellant lacked standing to protest the taxes assessed on the property and he failed to
follow the exclusive procedures for appealing the appraisal review board's action, including failing to timely
file his appeal in district court.

Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, and it may be raised at any point in the proceeding. Alfonso v.
Skadden, 251 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam); OAIC Commercial Assets, L.L.C. v. Stonegate Village,
L.P., 234 S.W.3d 726, 735 (Tex. App.- Dallas 2007, pet. denied). “Whether a court has subject matter
jurisdiction is a question of law.” Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004);
see also Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. 2002). “When a plea
to the jurisdiction challenges the pleadings, we determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively
demonstrate the court's jurisdiction to hear the cause.” Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226. “We construe the
pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiff and look to the pleader's intent.” Id.; see Dallas Cent. Appraisal Dist.
v. 1420 Viceroy Ltd. P'ship, 180 S.W.3d 267, 269 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.) (“[W]e liberally construe
the pleadings in favor of jurisdiction, focusing on the pleader's intent.”). “If the pleadings do not contain
sufficient facts to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court's jurisdiction but do not affirmatively demonstrate
incurable defects in jurisdiction, the issue is one of pleading sufficiency and the plaintiffs should be afforded
the opportunity to amend.” Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226-27 (citing County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d
549, 555 (Tex. 2002)). “If the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, then a plea to the
jurisdiction may be granted without allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend.” Id. at 227.

08-0708
BERNARD DOLENZ v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND DALLAS COUNTY APPRAISAL
REVIEW BOARD; from Dallas County; 5th district (05‑07‑00885‑CV, 259 SW3d 331, 06‑30‑08)(subject-
matter jurisdiction, property tax appeal, administrative remedies, timeliness) In this ad valorem tax case,
Bernard Dolenz appeals the trial court's judgment dismissing his claims against the Dallas Central Appraisal
District and the Dallas County Appraisal Review Board for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

-Appellees assert appellant failed to comply with section 42.21 of the Tax Code. Section 42.21 requires a
party bringing an appeal of an appraisal review board decision to file a petition for review in district court
within forty-five days after the party received notice that a final appealable order was entered. Tex. Tax Code
Ann. § 42.21 (a) (Vernon 2008). The failure to file the petition for review timely deprives the trial court of
jurisdiction over the claim. Appraisal Rev. Bd. v. Int'l Church of Foursquare Gospel, 719 S.W.2d 160, 160
(Tex. 1986) (per curiam); Gregg County Appraisal Dist. v. Laidlaw Waste Sys., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 12, 16 (Tex.
App.-Tyler 1995, writ denied).

C LAIMS AND DEFENSES IN TEXAS COURTS | INDEX TO H OUSTON CASE LAW PAGES |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE