The Supreme Court of Texas/Photo by Noah Dawson
The City of Amarillo is asking the state’s highest court to invalidate the portion of the civic center funding lawsuit requiring the city to reimburse businessman Alex Fairly’s legal fees.
In a petition filed with The Supreme Court of Texas on Wednesday, it appears that the city is not challenging the core portions of the ruling, where lower courts found that the city broke the law when it attempted to issue $260.5 million in tax notes to fund renovations of the Amarillo Civic Center Complex.
Instead, the city is only asking the court to consider the issue of attorney’s fees. “The Court of Appeals erroneously held that attorney’s fees were recoverable under the TDJA in clear violation of Chapter 1205’s plain language, well-established Texas law, and multiple canons of statutory construction,” the petition reads. If left in place, the city argues that it “will permit a single ‘disgruntled taxpayer’ to weaponize the TDJA to attack public securities before or after they are issued.”
The city’s argument rests partly on the procedural history of the case. Shortly after Amarillo City Council (under then-mayor Ginger Nelson) passed an ordinance issuing a quarter-billion dollars in tax notes, businessman Alex Fairly sued the city to halt the project under Chapter 37 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies code. After Fairly filed his lawsuit, the City of Amarillo brought their own suit under Chapter 1205 of the Texas Government Code, seeking a court order stating that the issuance was legal. The two cases were then combined and tried together by Judge William Sowder, who ruled the city broke the law and was on the hook for Fairly’s legal fees. The city then appealed the ruling to the Seventh Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment.
According to Chapter 37, “the court may award costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees as are equitable and just.” However, the city argues that, as it brought its case under Chapter 1205, which does not allow recovery of attorney’s fees, they should not have to pay. The Seventh Court of Appeals was not persuaded by this argument, stating in their opinion that “Chapter 1205 does not expressly deny Fairly’s entitlement to fees under another statute, and we decline the City’s request to manufacture a conflict between the statues.”
Review by the Texas Supreme Court is discretionary, meaning the court may or may not accept the city’s petition for review. For the latest news as this story unfolds, be sure to regularly check our website AmarilloPioneer.com, as well as our Facebook and Twitter accounts. Click the button below to download the city’s full petition.