Richard Williford, Trustee v. Pinnacle Gas Treating, Inc.

Graham D Williford and RIchard Williford, Trustee v. Pinnacle Gas Treating IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-02-00082-CV GRAHAM D. WILLIFORD, Appellant v. PINNACLE GAS TREATING, INC., Appellee From the 87th District Court Freestone County, Texas Trial Court # 97-096-B ******************* No. 10-02-00102-CV RICHARD WILLIFORD, TRUSTEE, Appellant v. PINNACLE GAS TREATING, INC., Appellee From the 77th District Court Freestone County, Texas Trial Court # 97-132-B MEMORANDUM OPINION The Texas Supreme Court has granted petition on the issue central to these appeals: whether a condemnor can satisfy the jurisdictional requirement that it negotiate in good faith with a landowner prior to initiating a condemnation proceeding when it negotiates for property rights in excess of what the condemnor seeks to obtain. MidTexas Pipeline Co. v. Dernehl, 71 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. granted); Cusack Ranch Corp. v. MidTexas Pipeline Co., 71 S.W.3d 395 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, pet. granted); Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., 65 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. granted). Petitions for review have been filed in two more cases. Pitts v. Sabine River Authority of Texas, 107 S.W.3d 811 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. filed); ExxonMobile Pipeline Co. v. Harrison Interests, Ltd., 93 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. filed). The courts of appeals that have addressed this issue are divided. The courts in Houston and Corpus Christi have answered the question affirmatively. ExxonMobile Pipeline Co. v. Harrison Interests, Ltd., 93 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. filed); ExxonMobile Pipeline Co. v. Bell, 84 S.W.3d 800 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. dism’d by agr.); Cusack Ranch Corp. v. MidTexas Pipeline Co., 71 S.W.3d 395 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, pet. granted); Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., 65 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. granted). The court in Texarkana has answered the question negatively. MidTexas Pipeline Co. v. Dernehl, 71 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. granted). We agree with the reasoning presented by the Houston and Corpus Christi courts. Therefore, the Willifords’s first issue is overruled. Because we overrule their first issue, we need not discuss their third issue. The Willifords’s remaining issues are improperly briefed and we decline to address them. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; Batto v. Gafford, 119 S.W.3d 346, 350 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, no pet.). The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Vance, and Justice Reyna (Justice Vance dissents with note: I agree with the Texarkana Court that the jurisdictional “unable to agree” requirement in section 21.012(a) of the Property Code was intended by the legislature to require an offer “for the purchase price of the property [interest] to be condemned,” not a negotiation that included other properties or rights beyond that being condemned. MidTexas Pipeline Co. v. Dernehl, 71 S.W.3d 852, 858 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. granted).) Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed June 23, 2004 [CV06]