Correcting Misclassifications: Tow Hearings in Texas Justice Courts are Expedited Civil Suits
The Myth of the Tow Hearing as an “Administrative Proceeding”
When it comes to legal proceedings, misclassifications lead to misunderstandings. A common misclassification involves tow hearings in Texas, which have been repeatedly and incorrectly characterized as “administrative proceedings.” This post aims to correct this misconception, addressing errors in the Justice Court Training Center's Deskbook and employing an old article published in the Texas Tech Administrative Law Journal.
Understanding Tow Hearings: The Basics
Most commonly, tow hearings are statutory suits to determine the absence of probable cause existed to tow a vehicle from a parking facility. According to Texas Occupations Code § 2308.452, a vehicle owner or operator is entitled to a hearing on whether probable cause existed for the removal and storage or booting of their vehicle. While there are certainly other contexts in which tow hearings arise, the vast majority are private property tows.
The Misclassification Issue
The Justice Court Training Center's Deskbook classifies tow hearings as “administrative proceedings.” This classification has created misunderstandings regarding the jurisdiction of the court conducting the hearing and the remedies it may award. The deskbook suggests that because tow hearings are administrative, the rules of civil and criminal procedure do not apply. However, this classification is incorrect because it ignores both the characteristics of an administrative proceeding and a civil suit in law. Stated more simply, the justice court training center’s assertion is groundless.
The Texas Tech Administrative Law Journal article corrects this misconception. In "A Case of Mistaken Identity: The Misclassification of Tow Hearings as Administrative Proceedings in Justice Court," Mr. Walters demonstrated that tow hearings are not “administrative proceedings” but are instead limited-scope suits in a constitutional court of justice.
Key Corrections and Clarifications
Nature of Tow Hearings:
Deskbook: Classifies tow hearings as administrative proceedings.
Correct Authority: Tow hearings are civil suits conducted in justice courts, not administrative proceedings handled by executive branch agencies.
Jurisdiction and Classification:
Deskbook: Implies unlimited amount in controversy jurisdiction for tow hearings.
Correct Authority: Tow hearings are limited scope small claims cases with a jurisdictional limit of $20,000, adhering to the Texas Government Code and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Applicable Rules and Procedures:
Deskbook: States that civil and criminal procedural rules do not apply. This is absolutely incorrect.
Correct Authority: The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure do apply to tow hearings, ensuring proper procedural conduct including default judgments and pretrial discovery.
Authority and Precedent:
Deskbook: Cites Wisser v. State and Morrissey v. Brewer to support the administrative classification.
Correct Authority: These cases pertain to probation and parole hearings, not tow hearings. Tow hearings are adjudicated by justice courts, making them judicial, not administrative.
Discretion and Judicial Power:
Deskbook: Suggests broad judicial discretion.
Correct Authority: Judicial discretion in tow hearings is limited by the determinable issues under the Texas Occupations Code in Section 2308.458, ensuring consistent application of legal standards.
Results and Appeals:
Deskbook: Describes outcomes from an administrative perspective.
Correct Authority: Outcomes are awards for damages and expenses enforceable as judgments for debt. Appeals are reviewed de novo in higher courts, without the need for an appeal bond.
Conclusion
Proper classification of tow hearings is essential for ensuring consistent legal outcomes. By acknowledging tow hearings are streamlined civil suits, we bring them into alignment with the correct legal standards and procedural rules. This approach not only clarifies the nature of these hearings but also prevents the improper extension of justice court powers beyond their statutory limits.