the State of Texas Ex Rel. Todd A. Durden, in His Official Capacity as County Attorney v. James T. \"tully\" Shahan, in His Official Capacity as County Judge Mark Frerich, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner Joe Montalvo, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner Dennis Dodson, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner Tim Ward, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner Kinney County Commissioners Court Kinney County And Rick Alvarado, in His Official Capacity as District and County Clerk of Kinney County, Texas ( 2022 )

Supreme Court of Texas
══════════
No. 21-1003
══════════
The State of Texas ex. rel. Todd A. Durden, in His Official
Capacity as County Attorney,
Petitioner,
v.
James T. “Tully” Shahan, in His Official Capacity as County
Judge; Mark Frerich, in His Official Capacity as County
Commissioner; Joe Montalvo, in His Official Capacity as County
Commissioner; Dennis Dodson, in His Official Capacity as
County Commissioner; Tim Ward, in His Official Capacity as
County Commissioner; Kinney County Commissioners Court;
Kinney County; and Rick Alvarado, in His Official Capacity as
District and County Clerk of Kinney County, Texas,
Respondents
═══════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas
═══════════════════════════════════════
~ consolidated with ~
══════════
No. 21-1017
══════════
Todd A. Durden, Individually & The State of Texas ex. rel. Todd
A. Durden, in His Official Capacity as County Attorney,
Petitioner,
v.
James T. “Tully” Shahan, in His Official Capacity as County
Judge; Mark Frerich, in His Official Capacity as County
Commissioner; Joe Montalvo, in His Official Capacity as County
Commissioner; Dennis Dodson, in His Official Capacity as
County Commissioner; Tim Ward, in His Official Capacity as
County Commissioner; Kinney County Commissioners Court;
Kinney County; and Rick Alvarado, in His Official Capacity as
District and County Clerk of Kinney County, Texas,
Respondents
═══════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas
═══════════════════════════════════════
~ consolidated with ~
══════════
No. 21-1018
══════════
Todd A. Durden, Individually & The State of Texas ex. rel. Todd
A. Durden, in His Official Capacity as County Attorney,
Petitioner,
v.
James T. “Tully” Shahan, in His Official Capacity as County
Judge; Mark Frerich, in His Official Capacity as County
Commissioner; Joe Montalvo, in His Official Capacity as County
Commissioner; Dennis Dodson, in His Official Capacity as
2
County Commissioner; Tim Ward, in His Official Capacity as
County Commissioner; Kinney County Commissioners Court;
Kinney County; and Rick Alvarado, in His Official Capacity as
District and County Clerk of Kinney County, Texas,
Respondents
═══════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas
═══════════════════════════════════════
PER CURIAM
We have repeatedly held that a party invokes an appellate court’s
jurisdiction by timely filing an instrument in a bona fide attempt to do
so. Here, a county attorney attempted to appeal orders that (1) held that
he lacked authority to pursue certain claims on the state’s behalf, and
(2) sanctioned him personally and individually for pursuing the claims
without such authority. The court of appeals affirmed, agreeing that the
attorney lacked authority and holding that he failed to perfect an appeal
on his own behalf. We agree with the court of appeals on the authority
issue, but we conclude the court should have accepted the attorney’s
appeal from the sanctions order or permitted him to amend the notices
of appeal. Without reaching the merits of the sanctions order, we affirm
in part, reverse in part, and remand the cases to the court of appeals.
Todd Durden, acting in his official capacity as the duly elected
county attorney for Kinney County, filed three separate cases on behalf
of the State of Texas. In one case, Durden alleged that the Kinney
County Commissioners Court violated the Texas Open Meetings Act
(TOMA) when it took certain budgetary actions to reduce his
3
government salary. In the second, Durden sought a writ of mandamus
to compel the district clerk or the county treasurer to refund amounts
Durden had personally deposited to secure litigation costs. In the third,
Durden alleged the county and its commissioners violated TOMA, the
Local Government Code, and Durden’s constitutional rights by reducing
his salary.
In each case, the defendants moved for summary judgment,
dismissal, and sanctions on the ground that Durden lacked authority to
file the suits on the state’s behalf. The trial court granted the motions,
dismissing all three cases and sanctioning Durden personally by
ordering him to pay the defendants’ attorney’s fees and costs.
Durden filed a notice of appeal in each case. All three notices
identified the “State of Texas” as the appellant and Durden, in his
official capacity, as the state’s attorney, but none explicitly mentioned
Durden in his individual capacity. Nor did he file a notice of appeal on
his own behalf. Each notice expressly stated, however, that “[t]his is a
comprehensive appeal of all issues and as to all parties affected by the
Order, which dismisses this case for want of jurisdiction and taxes
costs.” Durden later filed amended notices to reflect that the appeals
were “accelerated,” and each amended notice included this same
statement.
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgments. 648
S.W.3d 339, 346 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2021). On the merits, it held
that Durden lacked authority to file the suits on the state’s behalf. Id.Regarding the sanctions orders, it concluded it could not consider
Durden’s arguments because he did not file notices of appeal in his
4
individual capacity. Id. at 345. Durden requested reconsideration and
leave to file amended notices of appeal, but the court denied those
requests.
We begin by addressing the authority issue. The Texas
Constitution authorizes the attorney general, county attorneys, and
district attorneys to represent the state in various cases. See TEX.
CONST. art. IV, § 22 (addressing attorney general’s authority to
represent the state); id. art. V, § 21 (same for county attorneys and
district attorneys). In doing so, “the Constitution recognizes the right of
the Legislature to regulate and prescribe to each of these officers their
respective duties.” Garcia v. Laughlin, 285 S.W.2d 191, 195 (Tex. 1955);
see also El Paso Elec. Co. v. Tex. Dep’t of Ins., 937 S.W.2d 432, 438 (Tex.
1996) (“[T]he Constitution provides that the State shall be represented
by either the District Attorney or the County Attorney, as determined
by the Legislature.”). This authority to represent the state, however,
does not necessarily include the authority to independently decide
whether to institute a suit on the state’s behalf. See Ward County v.
King, 454 S.W.2d 239, 240 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1970, writ dism’d).1 The
1 The courts of appeals have consistently applied this rule in several
contexts. See, e.g., Driscoll v. Harris Cnty. Comm’rs Ct., 688 S.W.2d 569, 576
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (holding county
attorney lacked statutory authority to independently initiate suit for
declaratory or injunctive relief against expenditures of county funds); Ward
County, 454 S.W.2d at 240-41 (holding county attorney lacked authority to
initiate civil suit absent statutory or commissioners’ court authorization and
that TOMA did not provide the requisite authorization); A.B.C. Rendering, Inc.
v. State, 342 S.W.2d 345, 348 (Tex. App.—Houston 1961, no writ) (holding
county attorney lacked statutory authority to institute suit on the state’s
behalf); Wexler v. State, 241 S.W. 231, 233 (Tex. App.—Galveston 1922, no writ)
5
Legislature must provide that authority by statute. See Looscan v.
Harris County, 58 Tex. 511, 516 (1883); cf. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-
0507 (2007) (considering whether Chapter 593 of the Texas Health and
Safety Code gives a county attorney independent authority to initiate
and prosecute an application for involuntary placement).
Durden asserts that TOMA authorized him, as the county
attorney, to file these suits on the state’s behalf by authorizing any
“interested person” to sue to “stop, prevent, or reverse a violation or
threatened violation of [TOMA] by members of a governmental body.”
TEX. GOV’T CODE § 551.142(a). According to Durden, because the Code
Construction Act defines “person” to include a “governmental
subdivision or agency,” id. § 311.005(2), he—acting as county attorney
on the state’s behalf—qualifies as an “interested person.” But even if a
governmental subdivision or agency qualifies as an interested person
under TOMA (an issue we need not decide here), Durden purported to
file these suits on behalf of the state, not on behalf of a governmental
subdivision or agency. We find nothing in TOMA or the Code
Construction Act to support the notion that the state itself qualifies as
an “interested person.”
In fact, the Legislature amended TOMA after Durden filed these
lawsuits to add a new subsection (c) to Section 551.142, providing that
“[t]he attorney general may bring an action by mandamus or injunction
to stop, prevent, or reverse a violation or threatened violation” of one of
TOMA’s provisions. See Act of June 5, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 462,
(holding county attorney lacked authority to institute suit in the name of the
state to enjoin a railway from removing track).
6
§ 3, 2019 Tex. Gen. Law 865, 865-66 (codified at TEX. GOV’T CODE
§ 551.142(c)). If subsection (a)’s reference to “interested persons”
includes the state, the new subsection (c) is unnecessary and
meaningless. See Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue, 271
S.W.3d 238, 256 (Tex. 2008) (“The Court must not interpret the statute
in a manner that renders any part of the statute meaningless or
superfluous.” (citing City of Marshall v. City of Uncertain, 206 S.W.3d
97, 105 (Tex. 2006))). We agree with the court of appeals that TOMA
does not authorize Durden to bring these suits on the state’s behalf. 648
S.W.3d at 346; see also Ward County, 454 S.W.2d at 241 (holding TOMA
provision authorizing an “interested person” to sue for violations
“confers no authority on the county attorney to act for the county in the
type of lawsuit which we have before us”).
Having agreed that Durden lacked authority to pursue these suits
on the state’s behalf, we affirm that portion of the court of appeals’
judgment and turn now to Durden’s attempt to appeal the sanctions
orders on his own behalf. Durden challenged these orders on various
grounds, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him in his
individual capacity, that the defendants never gave notice that they
sought to impose sanctions on him personally or served him with such
notice in his individual capacity, that absolute immunity protects him
against any such personal liability for actions performed in his official
capacity, and that no legal or factual basis exists to support the
sanctions awards. The court of appeals did not reach these arguments,
concluding instead that Durden failed to perfect an appeal in his
individual capacity. 648 S.W.3d at 344.
7
Because any party who seeks to alter a trial court’s judgment
must file a notice of appeal, TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(c), an attorney who
seeks to appeal sanctions imposed against the attorney personally must
either join the client’s notice of appeal or file a separate notice. See, e.g.,
Sluder v. Ogden, No. 03-10-00280-CV, 2011 WL 116058, at *2 (Tex.
App.—Austin Jan. 13, 2011, pet. denied); Johnson ex rel. MAII Holdings,
Inc. v. Jackson Walker, L.L.P., 247 S.W.3d 765, 771 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2008, pet. denied). We agree with the court of appeals that, because
Durden did neither, his attempt to appeal the sanctions orders was
defective.
However, we have repeatedly instructed that appeals should be
decided on the merits rather than dismissed for a procedural defect, and
a failure to comply with procedural formalities need not cause inevitable
dismissal. See Mitschke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251, 260-61 (Tex.
2022); In re J.M., 396 S.W.3d 528, 530 (Tex. 2013); Verburgt v. Dorner,
959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex. 1997). Instead, a timely filed instrument
will invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction if it demonstrates a bona
fide attempt to do so. Mitschke, 645 S.W.3d at 261; In re J.M., 396
S.W.3d at 530. Thus, courts must grant parties a reasonable
opportunity to correct a procedural defect before they dismiss an appeal
on that ground. Higgins v. Randall Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 257 S.W.3d 684,
685 (Tex. 2008).
Here, Durden’s notices of appeal, docketing statements, and
post-notice motions identified Durden only in his official capacity, acting
on the state’s behalf. But the notices expressly described his intent to
appeal “all issues and as to all parties affected by the Order, which
8
dismisses this case for want of jurisdiction and taxes costs.” [Emphases
added.] Moreover, Durden’s appellate briefs specifically challenged the
sanctions awards, by which the trial court taxed costs against him only
in his individual capacity. The defendants responded to Durden’s
arguments in their own briefs, urging the court of appeals to uphold the
sanctions orders. The parties undoubtedly understood that the
sanctions orders were at issue on appeal, and thus there is no question
of unfair surprise or confusion. We conclude that Durden made a “bona
fide” attempt to invoke appellate jurisdiction over the sanctions orders.
See Warwick Towers Council of Co-Owners ex rel. St. Paul Fire & Marine
Ins. Co. v. Park Warwick, L.P., 244 S.W.3d 838, 839 (Tex. 2008) (holding
insurer that filed notice of appeal only in its insured’s name made a bona
fide attempt to invoke appellate jurisdiction over its own challenges to
trial court’s judgment).
When a party has timely made a bona fide attempt to invoke
appellate jurisdiction, the court of appeals must accept the deficient
notice or give the party an opportunity to amend and refile it to perfect
the appeal. Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. S. Parts Imports, Inc., 813
S.W.2d 499, 500 (Tex. 1991). We conclude the court of appeals erred by
denying Durden’s motions to amend and dismissing his appeals.
We grant Durden’s petition for review, and, without hearing oral
argument pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, affirm
the court of appeals’ judgments as to Durden’s lack of authority to file
these suits on the state’s behalf, reverse the court of appeals’ judgments
as to Durden’s issues regarding sanctions, and remand to the court of
appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
9
OPINION DELIVERED: December 30, 2022
10