Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Feeding Operations

Nuisance Lawsuit Against Texas Feedlot Barred by Statute of Repose

Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

Summary of Decision

In Barrera v. Hondo Creek Cattle Co., 132 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. Ct. App. 2004), the Court of Appeals of Texas ruled that the Texas Agriculture Code's statute of repose, Tex. Agric. Code Ann. § 251.004(a) (2004), barred a nuisance lawsuit filed by neighbors against a cattle feedlot operator.

Background

Plaintiffs were a group of residents who lived in and near Edroy, Texas. See Barrera, 132 S.W.3d at 546. Defendant Hondo Creek Cattle Company (hereinafter referred to as "the feedlot"), operated a 500-acre cattle feedlot also near Edroy. See id. The neighbors filed a lawsuit against the feedlot alleging that "flies, dust, and smell from the feedlot created nuisance conditions on their property." Id. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the feedlot with respect to the nuisance claim, finding that the claim was barred by § 251.004(a) of the Texas Agriculture Code. See id. at 547. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's ruling to the Texas Court of Appeals. See id. at 546.

Arguments

The feedlot argued that the nuisance lawsuit was barred by the one-year statute of repose set forth in Tex. Agric. Code Ann. § 251.004(a). See id. Section 251.004(a) provides the following:

No nuisance action may be brought against an agricultural operation that has lawfully been in operation for one year or more prior to the date on which the action is brought, if the conditions or circumstances complained of as constituting the basis for the nuisance action have existed substantially unchanged since the established date of operation.

Id. (citation omitted).

The plaintiffs contended that the statute of repose did not apply because the "conditions complained of as constituting the nuisance [had] substantially change[d]." Id. at 548. To support their contention, the neighbors argued that the feedlot's predecessor had been closed for a number of months before selling the operation. See id.

Analysis and Holding

The court held that the neighbors' lawsuit against the feedlot was "barred by the statute of repose set out in section 251.004 of the agricultural code." Id. at 550. It explained that the neighbors had "misguidedly focused on . . . changes in the operation of the feedlot" rather than changes "in the conditions allegedly creating the nuisance (i.e., the flies, dust, and smell)." Id. at 549. It noted that "changes in the operation of the feedlot could have [had] an effect on the conditions of the feedlot, but . . .[that the plaintiffs failed] to demonstrate this relationship in their brief." Id. The court further noted that the plaintiffs had complained about the dust more than one year before filing suit, demonstrating that the conditions had not substantially changed. See id.

The case was decided on March 4, 2004; this summary was posted Jan. 13, 2005.