In 2020 the State began condemnation proceedings to acquire about one-tenth of an acre in Montgomery County from REME, L.L.C.; the trial court appointed disinterested commissioners, who assessed condemnation damages at $1.1 million.¹ On Friday, April 16, 2021, the State electronically filed the commissioners' findings as a "proposed" award with the trial court clerk, and the clerk marked it "Received and E-Filed for Record" that day.² On Monday, April 19, the judge awarded fees, signed the award, and left blank an acknowledgment that the award "was filed with me"; the clerk then notified the State, attaching the award with its April 16 file stamp and April 19 judicial signature.³

On May 14 the State filed a written objection to the commissioners' findings, which was timely if the period ran from the judge's April 19 signature and late if it ran from the April 16 filing with the clerk; REME moved for final judgment, arguing the objection was untimely, and the trial court adopted the award, finding that no objections were filed within the time provided by law.¹ The State appealed, and the court of appeals reversed, holding that filing "with the court" is not complete until receipt by the judge; a concurring justice would have held the objection timely because a "proposed award" does not begin the objection period.² REME filed its petition for review on October 11, 2023, and the State filed its response on February 7, 2024; the Court requested briefs on the merits on June 14, 2024, and REME and the State filed them on August 2 and September 23, 2024, followed by REME's reply on October 22, 2024 (Docket). On February 21, 2025, the Court granted the petition and decided the case per curiam under Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, without hearing oral argument.³

Petition for review from the Ninth Court of Appeals; granted and decided per curiam without oral argument under Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1 on February 21, 2025.⁴

REME presents whether a deadline-triggering document is filed "with the court" only when the judge receives it, as the court of appeals held, or once it is electronically filed with the court clerk.¹ The State presents whether the court of appeals correctly calculated its objection deadline using the filing date shown by the trial court's minutes, register of actions, docket sheet, judge's signature, and the clerk's notice letter.² The Court decided whether filing the commissioners' findings "with the court" under Property Code section 21.018(a) includes filing with the court clerk.³

Questions of statutory construction are reviewed de novo, looking to the plain meaning of the enacted text unless a different meaning is apparent from context or the plain meaning leads to absurd results.¹

Whether the commissioners' findings are filed "with the court" when filed with the clerk.

Petitioner (REME): Texas legal practice, rules, and case law show that filing with the court means filing with the court clerk, the plain meaning of "with the court" in section 21.018(a) refers to the clerk and not the judge, and requiring judicial receipt would conflict with the rest of the statute and create an absurd result.¹

Respondent (the State): The easiest way to resolve the case is through the facts: the trial court's minutes, register of actions, docket sheet, judge's signature, and the clerk's notice letter show the findings were filed "with the court" on April 19, 2021, so its May 14 objection was timely; and the judge was authorized by statute to receive the commissioners' findings.²

REME argued that the outcome affects the entire condemnation universe because the date an award is filed "with the court" sets the objection deadline, the life of each case, and the finality of landowners' damages, and that the court of appeals' interpretation creates uncertainty about a jurisdictional deadline that deserves absolute clarity.¹

None. The docket shows no amicus filings.

Holding

The commissioners file their findings "with the court" under section 21.018(a) when they are filed with the trial court clerk, so the period to object began on the day the State filed the award with the clerk, and the State's objection was untimely.¹

Reasoning

Chapter 21 provides no specific filing mechanism, and receipt of filings is commonly understood to be the clerk's task; Rules 74 and 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which are persuasive on the common meaning even though they do not apply to the administrative phase, direct that filings are made with the clerk, and the Court's cases hold that a document is "filed" when it is placed in the clerk's custody or control.² Nothing in section 21.018(a) departs from that common meaning.³

The State argued that the statute was a nonsubstantive recodification that should carry forward the predecessor's reference to filing with "the county judge," but the Legislature's choice of "court" over "county judge" was a direct, substantive change, since "court" includes the clerk, and the Court does not look back to former text when the current text is direct and unambiguous.⁴ Section 21.049, which requires the judge to inform the clerk of the commissioners' decision, would matter only if the commissioners had handed the award to the judge, and it does not preclude the State from filing the award directly with the clerk.⁵ The Court also rejected the concurring justice's view, because the "proposed" label reflects the award's status during the objection period and not its effectiveness to start the period.⁶ The clerk's stamp confirmed the filing date, and the State was simply late.⁷ The Court expressed no opinion on the parties' calculation under Government Code section 311.014(b).⁸

Disposition

The Court granted the petition for review, reversed the court of appeals' judgment, and reinstated the trial court's judgment.⁹

Vote Breakdown

Per Curiam Opinion

Joined by Blacklock, C.J., and Bland, Boyd, Busby, Devine, Huddle, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.