Linbeck Construction Corp v. City of Grand Prairie
2009 WL 2437097, 293 S.W.3d 896 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Governmental immunity protects a governmental entity from a suit to foreclose a mechanic's lien on its real property because such a suit is equivalent to a suit for money damages. Furthermore, the Texas Property Code explicitly exempts the real property of a political subdivision of the state from forced sale.
Facts:
- In 2000, Texas NextStage, LP began developing an entertainment facility and contracted with Linbeck Construction Corporation to construct part of it.
- In 2001, while construction was ongoing, the City of Grand Prairie agreed to purchase the facility from Texas NextStage upon substantial completion.
- In January 2002, Texas NextStage certified that construction was substantially complete, and the City of Grand Prairie purchased the property.
- Texas NextStage certified to the City that all project costs had been paid or that funds were reserved for payment.
- Construction continued on the facility after the City purchased it.
- In March and July 2002, Linbeck submitted payment applications to Texas NextStage, which were never paid.
- On July 16, 2002, Linbeck filed a mechanic's lien against the property for $2,984,482.
- Texas NextStage subsequently declared bankruptcy without paying Linbeck.
Procedural Posture:
- Linbeck Construction Corporation filed suit against the City of Grand Prairie in trial court for judicial foreclosure of its mechanic's lien.
- Linbeck later filed an amended petition adding claims for a declaratory judgment and other relief.
- The City of Grand Prairie filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity from suit.
- The trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction as to the claims for foreclosure and declaratory judgment, dismissing them for want of jurisdiction.
- Linbeck Construction Corporation, as appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, challenging the trial court's dismissal of its claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does governmental immunity protect a city from a lawsuit seeking to foreclose a mechanic's lien on city-owned property?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Fitzgerald
Yes. A suit for foreclosure of property owned by a government is the equivalent of a suit for money damages for governmental immunity purposes. The court reasoned that regardless of the form of the action, the end result sought by the plaintiff is the same: the governmental entity must pay the plaintiff money. In a foreclosure, if the government does not voluntarily pay, it is forced to surrender property which can be sold to satisfy the debt, compelling the use of public resources. This action is barred by governmental immunity, which exists to prevent lawsuits from hampering government functions and diverting tax resources. The court further noted that Texas Property Code § 43.002 explicitly exempts real property owned by a political subdivision from forced sale.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the broad protection of governmental immunity in Texas, clarifying that its shield extends beyond direct claims for money damages to functionally equivalent actions like foreclosure suits. It establishes that the substance of the remedy sought, rather than its label, determines whether immunity applies. The ruling serves as a caution to contractors on public or quasi-public projects, emphasizing that mechanic's liens are an ineffective remedy against government-owned real property. Consequently, this precedent pushes contractors to rely on other statutory protections, such as payment bonds, when dealing with projects destined for public ownership.
