Opinion
No. 04-05-00001-CV
Delivered and Filed: March 16, 2005.
Appeal from the 81st Judicial District Court, Frio County, Texas, Trial Court No. 04-08-00281-Cvf, Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding.
Reversed and Remanded.
Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Karen ANGELINI, Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The State of Texas appeals the trial court's order dismissing its quo warranto action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that the controversy was moot. We reverse the trial court's order and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The State only appeals the order with regard to Richard C. Garcia, Jr. The State concedes that the controversy is moot as to Roland Segovia.
BACKGROUND
In May of 2003, Roland Segovia was elected as mayor of the City of Pearsall, and Richard C. Garcia, Jr. was elected as a councilmember. During their terms, Segovia and Garcia announced their candidacy for other public offices. On July 14, 2004, Attorney General Greg Abbott issued an attorney general's opinion concluding that the announcement for other offices ipso facto created a forfeiture of their offices as mayor and councilmember, respectively, under the terms of the City Charter of Pearsall.
Both Segovia and Garcia were defeated in primaries for the other offices they sought and remained holdovers in their offices on the city council. On October 1, 2004, the remaining members of the city council reappointed Segovia and Garcia to their former positions. On the same day, Segovia tendered his resignation. On November 9, 2004, city council accepted Segovia's resignation and appointed a new mayor. After a lawsuit filed by a citizen was converted into a quo warranto proceeding, the trial judge granted a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction on the basis that no legal controversy existed.
DISCUSSION
We review a district court's ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction under a de novo standard of review because subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998). Subject matter jurisdiction requires that there be a live controversy between the parties. State Bar of Texas v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994). A case becomes moot if at any stage there ceases to be an actual controversy between the parties. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). The test for mootness is commonly stated as whether the court's action on the merits would affect the rights of the parties. VE Corp. v. Ernst Young, 860 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993).
The purpose of a quo warranto action involving officeholders is to determine disputed questions concerning the proper person entitled to hold a public office and exercise its functions. State ex rel. Angelini v. Hardberger, 932 S.W.2d 489, 490 (Tex. 1996). In this case, the quo warranto action continued to challenge Garcia's right to serve as a councilmember of the Pearsall City Council. Accordingly, the controversy remained a "live" controversy at the time of the trial court's ruling because the State continued to dispute whether Garcia was a proper person to hold the councilmember position. See Crawford v. State, No. 07-02-0471-CV, 2004 WL 351031 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Feb. 26, 2004, no pet.) (holding controversy regarding constable's qualifications to serve not rendered moot even by constable's resignation where no successor was appointed).
CONCLUSION
The trial court's order is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.