Jurisdictional Clarity’s Impact on Family Law: Learning from Tort Claims Notice Requirements

City of Houston v. Jessica Zuniga, 24-0916, June 13, 2025.

On appeal from Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas

Synopsis

The Supreme Court of Texas denied the City of Houston’s petition for review, leaving in place the court of appeals’ conclusion that the City had actual notice under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101(c), which preserved subject‑matter jurisdiction so the negligence claim may proceed to the merits. Justice Young’s concurrence emphasizes that, under any plausible standard, actual notice was present and urges doctrinal clarity—specifically a reexamination of Cathey‑era requirements that have complicated actual‑notice analysis.

Relevance to Family Law

Although the dispute arises under the Texas Tort Claims Act in an automobile‑collision context, the decision matters for family‑law practitioners whenever a governmental actor or unit is implicated in personal injuries that affect divorce, conservatorship, child support, or estate valuations. Jurisdictional bars rooted in sovereign immunity can extinguish or delay claims that generate community‑property issues, property division offsets, or damages that inform custody determinations. The concurrence’s emphasis on textual fidelity and the viability of actual notice also affects strategic choices about plea to the jurisdiction practice, preservation of claims against entities such as municipal employers, law‑enforcement agencies, or CPS, and the evidentiary record needed to rebut jurisdictional challenges in family litigation.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Plaintiff Jessica Zuniga alleged that a vehicle driven by a City of Houston employee struck her vehicle, causing injury. Zuniga did not provide the City the formal statutory notice within six months as prescribed by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101(a), but the parties and the courts focused on whether the City possessed actual notice under § 101.101(c). The trial court denied the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment; the First Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the City had actual notice. The City sought review in the Supreme Court, which denied the petition.

Issues Decided

The central issue resolved for jurisdictional purposes was whether the City of Houston had actual notice of Zuniga’s injury such that the statutory notice requirement of § 101.101 was inapplicable and sovereign immunity was waived. Ancillary to that core question is the broader doctrinal point raised in Justice Young’s concurrence: whether existing Cathey‑era jurisprudence has inappropriately elevated the statutory actual‑notice provision beyond its plain text, creating uncertainty that courts should correct.

Rules Applied

The court framed the dispute against the text of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101, which requires timely notice that reasonably describes the injury, time, place, and incident but expressly excepts the formal notice requirement where the governmental unit has actual notice of death, injury, or property damage. The opinion—and in particular Justice Young’s concurrence—addressed Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. 1995), as the precedent that has influenced the Court’s approach to the actual‑notice exception, and referenced the principles of stare decisis and statutory interpretation reflected in more recent authorities, including Mitschke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. 2022).

Application

The courts below found that, even though formal notice had not been sent, the City nonetheless had actual notice of the incident and resulting injury. The appellate court’s analysis, left intact by the Supreme Court’s denial of review, treated the statutory text seriously: the question was whether the City had knowledge that the claimant had received an injury from the incident, such that the policy goal behind § 101.101(a) was satisfied. Justice Young’s concurrence narrates the practical and jurisprudential problem: decades of post‑Cathey decisions have layered extra requirements on the statute’s actual‑notice exception, leading to repeated satellite litigation over jurisdictional thresholds. Here, however, the factual matrix was sufficiently robust that, under any reasonable interpretive approach, the City’s knowledge met the statute’s exception and the case should advance to the merits.

Holding

The Supreme Court denied the City’s petition for review, effectively leaving the court of appeals’ judgment that the City had actual notice in place and allowing the negligence suit to proceed. In his concurrence, Justice Young held that the City likely had actual notice under any plausible standard and used the occasion to call for clearer, text‑bound guidance from this Court on the proper reach of § 101.101(c). Although the denial of review is not a merits opinion, the concurrence signals that the Court recognizes the overcomplexity the Cathey line has produced and is amenable to doctrinal reassessment in an appropriate future case.

Practical Application

For family‑law practitioners, the immediate lesson is twofold: first, when claims against governmental entities arise in the context of divorce, custody, or estate proceedings—whether as independent tort claims impacting community property valuation or as consequential events bearing on custody assessments—act promptly to secure jurisdictional footing. Where possible, serve formal statutory notice within six months; where formal notice was not given, develop and preserve a factual record demonstrating the governmental unit’s actual knowledge (police reports, employer incident reports, internal emails, claim files, witness statements, EMS records, and any contemporaneous communication). Second, anticipate and prepare to oppose jurisdictional pleas by framing actual notice under the plain statutory language rather than permitting adversaries to import extrastatutory hurdles; the Young concurrence furnishes persuasive authority for arguing that actual notice should be capacious enough to prevent needless dismissal where the government plainly knew of the injury.

Checklists

Prepare jurisdictional posture
– Identify whether a governmental unit or employee is a potential defendant in any personal‑injury claim connected to family matters.
– If so, calendar the six‑month statutory notice deadline immediately and document decision‑making regarding whether to send formal notice.
– If formal notice will not be sent, prepare a litigation memorandum explaining why actual notice exists and list expected proof.

Gather Your Evidence
– Police reports and crash reports identifying a city vehicle or city employee.
– EMS/medical run sheets showing prompt treatment after an incident.
– City internal incident/accident reports, supervisor notifications, or discipline documents.
– Emails, texts, or calls to municipal personnel evidencing knowledge.
– Insurance claim submissions or communications with the city’s risk management.
– Witness statements and photographs of the scene, vehicle markings, and damage.

Responding to a Plea to the Jurisdiction
– Assemble a focused jurisdictional appendix with the foregoing documents.
– Draft an affidavit roadmap tying each piece of evidence to the statutory elements of § 101.101(c): that the governmental unit had knowledge the claimant was injured.
– Emphasize contemporaneity of the government’s knowledge and its capacity to investigate or mitigate because those policy considerations animate the statute.

Client counseling and estate planning impact
– Advise clients in pending family matters about how a municipal tort claim (or its absence) may affect community‑property accounting, reimbursement claims, or spousal support calculations.
– Preserve claims for inclusion in final decrees or settlement agreements; structure releases carefully to exclude municipal claims unless expressly bargained.

Citation

City of Houston v. Jessica Zuniga, No. 24‑0916 (Tex. June 13, 2025) (denial of petition for review; Young, J., concurring).

Full Opinion

The full concurrence and opinion materials are available here: Supreme Court of Texas — City of Houston v. Jessica Zuniga (June 13, 2025)