Date: 01-28-2025

Case Style: The City Keller v. John W. Wilson, et al.

Case Number: 02-1012

Judge: Not Available

Court: District court, Tarrant County, Texas

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Fort Worth, Texas civil litigation lawyers represented the parties in a planning and zoning case.

The City of Keller is one of several fast-growing communities on the outskirts of Fort Worth.1 As part of that growth, the City approved plans for two new subdivisions, Estates of Oak Run and Rancho Serena, including plans for storm water drainage.

The Wilsons own property southeast of the new subdivisions, with a tract owned by Z.T. Sebastian lying between. Before development, surface water flowed generally north to south from the land where the subdivisions were built, across the Sebastian and Wilson properties, and into the Little Bear Creek Watershed.

In 1991, the City adopted a Master Drainage Plan providing for drainage easements across both the Sebastian and Wilson properties, and thence into Little Bear Creek. The City's codes require developers to comply with the Master Plan, to provide drainage for a 100-year rain event, and to avoid increasing the volume or velocity of water discharged upon downhill properties.

The developers of Oak Run and Rancho Serena submitted plans to the City indicating they would buy a drainage easement and build a ditch forty-five feet wide and more than two hundred yards long across the Sebastian property, and deed both to the City upon completion.2 The plans also included detention basins on the subdivision properties, but omitted any drainage easement or ditch across the Wilsons' property. The City's director of public works approved the developers' plans, and the City accepted the works on completion.

In accordance with the Master Plan, the City built a box culvert south of the Wilsons' property. But as the developers' drainage ditch ended at the Wilsons' north property line, there was no link between the two. The Wilsons alleged and the jury found this omission increased flooding on the Wilsons' property, ruining eight acres of farmland the jury valued at almost $300,000.

To recover damages for inverse condemnation, the Wilsons had to prove the City intentionally took or damaged their property for public use, or was substantially certain that would be the result.3 They do not allege the City intentionally flooded their land, but do allege it approved revised plans that it knew were substantially certain to have that effect.

The City contends no evidence supports the jury's finding of an intentional taking. It presented evidence that engineers for the developers, for the City, and for an outside firm the City retained all certified that the revised drainage plan complied with the City's codes and regulations — including the ban against increasing downstream runoff. Thus, the City asserts it had no reason to be substantially certain the opposite would occur, until it did.

* * *

egal issue "Does an appellate court reviewing a verdict for legal sufficiency have to start by considering all the evidence or only part of it?"
Headnote

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. REVIEW OF VERDICTS. The case concerns the correct standard for appellate review of verdicts for legal sufficiency and whether the review should consider all the evidence, only part of the evidence, or whether evidence should be disregarded under certain circumstances.

2. PROPERTY LAW. TAKINGS CLAUSE. The case handles the issue of whether a city may be held liable in a claim of inverse condemnation for the approval of a private development plan that resulted in flooding and damage to a neighboring property.

3. EVIDENCE LAW. EXPERT OPINIONS. This case explores whether juries are required to credit a party's testimony of reliance on an expert's assurances, within a review for legal sufficiency.

4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. EMINENT DOMAIN. The case raises the issue of whether a city's failure to condemn an easement and the associated approval of a private development plan that contributes to property damage can be considered a taking under Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution.

Outcome:

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: