CORPUS CHRISTI, Tx — A 105th District Court judge said he will announce his ruling next week on whether to grant a temporary restraining order against the Corpus Christi Housing Authority, following a contentious hearing Wednesday that centered on jurisdictional questions and the authority's obligations under state open meetings laws.
Judge Jack Pulcher heard arguments from multiple parties in the dispute over the housing authority board's decision to void workforce housing agreements involving 13 apartment complexes in Corpus Christi.
The hearing focused heavily on whether Judge Pulcher must first rule on the housing authority's plea to jurisdiction before considering the TRO application.
Jeff Lehrman, general counsel for the housing authority, argued that the court could not rule on the temporary restraining order until it first addressed the plea to jurisdiction.
However, Johnny Carter, attorney representing the property owner and developer intervenors, argued against this procedural approach. Carter later made a surprising legal argument: that the housing authority is not subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) at all.
The assertion drew a sharp rebuke from Bill Helfand, outside counsel for the housing authority.
"The most shocking thing I've heard today is that a public housing authority is not subject to the open meetings act," Helfand told the court. "I am positive housing authorities are subject to the open meetings act. That's just simply wrong and misleading of the court."
Central to the TRO application was whether the intervenors would suffer immediate and irreparable harm without court intervention.
In court filings, the intervenors argue the housing authority's January 6 resolution threatens "immediate loss of the leasehold and property tax exemptions that are essential to each of the thirteen affected affordable housing projects' financing structures and day-to-day operations."
According to their reply, the intervenors claim CCHA's actions would trigger:
- Loan defaults and foreclosures: The properties were refinanced based on CCHA's land ownership and tax exemptions. Loss of either would violate loan covenants in their deeds of trust
- Severe credit impairment and loss of goodwill: Default would damage the developers' reputations and ability to finance future projects
- Displacement of hundreds of families: Without tax abatements, controlled rents would become financially untenable, forcing rent increases when leases renew in coming months
"This is precisely the situation that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 680 was designed to address," Carter argued in court documents, describing it as "a party to a contract threatening to undo the status quo during a pending lawsuit, in a way that is not compensable in damages."
The housing authority disputes this characterization. In its response, CCHA argues that the intervenors have not established sufficient proof of immediate irreparable harm, contending that the January 6 resolution is not self-executing and should not be taken as an imminent threat. CCHA maintains any potential harms "will not occur until after the conclusion of one or more separate judicial proceedings."
Helfand argued that while the trial court has authority over the original case brought by Nueces County — which alleged the housing authority violated the open meetings act — the intervenors have transformed what was a TOMA lawsuit into a breach of contract dispute.
He characterized the intervenors' request for a TRO as "an effort to mess with the housing authority."
Helfand revealed that the housing authority conducted an internal investigation in response to the county's lawsuit and concluded "they (CCHA) did not comply with the open meetings act."
The intervenors counter that CCHA cannot void its own contracts by claiming it violated TOMA when entering them. They also filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing CCHA's meeting notices were sufficient under TOMA.
Carter told the judge he would file a brief later Wednesday demonstrating why the housing authority is not subject to TOMA requirements.
Lehrman pushed back on Carter's legal theory, noting an apparent contradiction: "How could we not be subject to TOMA and at the same time tax exempt? If we aren't subject to the open meetings act, we aren't tax exempt."
