Trends in Recent Texas Tow Hearing Cases (2021-2025)

This article reviews ten recent Texas appellate court decisions on tow hearings. Through this review, certain trends have been identified, which may help clear some of the murky waters surrounding private property towing, probable cause, and the scope of determinable issues in justice court tow hearings.

Probable Cause remains Central

The cornerstone of tow hearing appeals remains the determination of whether probable cause existed for the removal and placement of the vehicle. See, e.g., Kadow v. MAA, Watermark, No. 02-22-00038-CV, 2022 WL 17841131, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 22, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); Smith v. Madera Residential-Rock Creek Apartments, No. 01-21-00443-CV, 2022 WL 17835217, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 22, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). Courts consistently reiterate that this is the primary issue to be decided.

 A. Definition and Application of Probable Cause:

While the Texas Towing and Booting Act (the “Act”) does not explicitly define “probable cause,” courts have often applied a standard akin to the criminal definition, focusing on a reasonable belief that an offense or violation has occurred. Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Niles, No. 10-21-00278-CV, 2022 WL 1789978, at *3 (Tex. App.—Waco June 1, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Wilt v. City of Greenville Police Dep’t, No. 06-10-00107-CV, 2011 WL 1600509, at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 29, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.)). For instance, in Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Niles, the court referenced a definition of probable cause existing when “reasonably trustworthy facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officer on the scene would lead a man of reasonable prudence to believe that the instrumentality of a crime or evidence of a crime will be found.” Id. This standard is described as a “flexible, common-sense standard requiring only a probability of suspect activity rather than an actual showing of such activity.” Id. (quoting Wilt, 2011 WL 1600509, at *2).

B. Authorization and Payment as Factors:

Several cases underscore that if a vehicle owner has paid for parking or is otherwise authorized to park, probable cause for towing may be lacking. In Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Niles, the court found no probable cause where the parking fee had been paid prior to the tow. 2022 WL 1789978, at *3. Similarly, in Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Hargrove, 628 S.W.3d 607 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2021, pet. denied), op. withdrawn, reh’g denied, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 4383 (Tex. App.—Texarkana June 4, 2021) (cited in Niles, 2022 WL 1789978, at *3 ), the court found sufficient evidence that the vehicle was authorized after prompt payment, thus negating probable cause for the tow. The burden of proof to disprove probable cause rests with the vehicle owner or operator who requested the hearing. Zhao v. Two Steppin Towing, No. 02-21-00351-CV, 2022 WL 11456754, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 20, 2022, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (citing Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2308.458(b-1)(1)).

C. Inoperable or Abandoned Vehicles:

The condition of a vehicle can contribute to a finding of probable cause. In Smith v. Madera Residential-Rock Creek Apartments, the county court at law concluded there was probable cause to tow a vehicle that appeared abandoned and inoperable, with debris on the windshield, rusted brake disks, and an expired inspection/registration sticker, particularly where the apartment lease subjected inoperable vehicles to towing. No. 01-21-00443-CV, 2022 WL 17835217, at *1.

Statutory Notice Requirements for Parking Facilities

Adequate notice of parking restrictions appears to be a critical prerequisite for a lawful nonconsent tow. Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2308.252(a)(1) (Westlaw through 2023 Legis. Sess.).

 A. Signage Requirements:

The Act mandates specific requirements for towing signs. Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2308.301 (Westlaw through 2023 Legis. Sess.). A parking facility owner must post a sign that, among other requirements, “contains a statement describing who may park in the parking facility and prohibiting all others.” Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2308.301(b)(4). The purpose is to provide a vehicle owner or operator with adequate notice. Ellis v. Gardens, No. 13-24-00257-CV, 2024 WL 4707815, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Nov. 7, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). 

In Ellis v. Gardens, the court found a sign compliant even if “the sign could be a little more clearly worded,” as long as a “reasonable person could read that sign” and understand the parking requirements, such as the need for a permit. 2024 WL 4707815, at *2. The court emphasized that reading the words on the sign collectively is key to determining if the notice is adequate. Id. at *3. The sign in Ellis stated, “UNAUTHORIZED VEHICLES WILL BE TOWED AT THE OWNER’S OR OPERATOR’S EXPENSE” and “RESIDENTS AND VISITORS MUST DISPLAY PERMITS,” which the court found sufficient to imply that vehicles without valid permits were unauthorized and subject to tow. Id. at *1, *3.

Conversely, in Kadow v. MAA, Watermark, the appellant argued that a sign listing prohibited vehicles did not adequately state who was permitted to park as required by Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2308.301(b)(4). 2022 WL 17841131, at *3, *5. However, the court held that evidence of a sign stating unauthorized vehicles would be towed and providing examples, including “vehicles without required permit [or] visitors pass,” was factually sufficient for the trial court to conclude it met the statutory requirement. Id. at *5.

B. Direct Notice on Vehicle:

Alternatively, a parking facility operator may tow a vehicle without the owner or operator’s consent—regardless of whether any towing signs are present—if it places upon the vehicle a conspicuous notice meeting the requirements of Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2308.252(a)(2). Kadow, 2022 WL 17841131, at *5. The court in Kadow found that a warning sticker stating the vehicle was illegally parked, listing unauthorized parking conditions, stating the vehicle would be towed at the owner’s or operator’s expense, and containing a phone number for the towing facility, complied with this provision. Id. at *1, *6.

C. Special Rules for Expired Registration/License Plates:

Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2308.253(d) provides that an operator of an apartment complex parking facility “may not have a vehicle towed from the parking facility merely because the vehicle does not display an unexpired license plate or registration insignia.” Kadow, 2022 WL 17841131, at *4. If a contract provision allows towing for such a reason from an apartment complex, § 2308.253(e) requires the provision to mandate at least 10 days’ written notice to the vehicle owner or operator that the vehicle will be towed if not removed. Id. These subsections were deemed inapplicable in Kadow because there was no evidence the vehicle was towed merely for expired registration, and the lease under which Kadow might have claimed rights had expired. Id.

Procedural Aspects and Appeals.

Recent cases clarify several procedural nuances in tow hearings and their appeals.

A. Pleading Requirements in Justice Court vs. County Court. 

A significant ruling in Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Herrera established that the strict rules of pleading required in courts of record do not apply in justice court appeals concerning attorney’s fees in tow hearings. 708 S.W.3d 289, 292-93 (Tex. App.—Waco 2025, no pet. h.). The court held that a driver was not required to affirmatively plead a request for attorney’s fees in writing before the trial de novo in county court. Id. at 290, 292-93. An oral request during the trial de novo was sufficient because the rules of civil procedure applicable to civil cases in justice court did not require the judgment to conform to the pleadings, and rule 502.1 excepts oral motions made during trial. Id. at 292.

B. Scope of Appeal to County Court:

An appeal from a justice court tow hearing to the county court is a trial de novo. Smith, 2022 WL 17835217, at *2 (citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 506.3); Golden v. Milstead Towing & Storage, Nos. 09-21-00043-CV, 09-21-00044-CV, 09-21-00045-CV, 2022 WL 1412303, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont May 5, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). However, the county court’s appellate jurisdiction is confined to the jurisdictional limits of the justice court. Wright v. Village on the Green, No. 05-23-00635-CV, 2024 WL 4052335, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 5, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). Therefore, new causes of action unrelated to the tow hearing (i.e., whether probable cause existed for the tow and whether towing charges were authorized by statute) cannot be raised for the first time on appeal to the county court. Id. In Wright v. Village on the Green, the county court correctly dismissed an appeal where the appellants raised numerous new claims (breach of fiduciary duty, DTPA violations, etc.) without challenging the justice court’s probable cause determination and without filing an appeal bond that would have been required for such new claims. Id. at *1, *2.

C. Appeal Bond Exemption:

Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2308.459 explicitly states that an appeal from a tow hearing “is governed by the rules of procedure applicable to civil cases in justice court, except that no appeal bond may be required by the court.” Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Herrera, 708 S.W.3d at 292; Wright, 2024 WL 4052335, at *2. However, this exemption applies only when the appeal strictly concerns the issues permissible in a tow hearing. See Wright, 2024 WL 4052335, at *2 (affirming dismissal where new causes of action were raised and bond was not filed).

D. Timeliness of Requesting a Tow Hearing:

Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2308.456(a) requires a party challenging a tow to “deliver a written request for the hearing to the court before the 14th day after the date the vehicle was removed and placed in the vehicle storage facility or booted, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.” Mortaji v. Parking Mgmt. Co., No. 14-22-00318-CV, 2023 WL 2585816, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 21, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.). Critically, Mortaji v. Parking Management Company adopted the reasoning of Manderscheid v. LAZ Parking of Tex., LLC, 506 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied), holding that this 14-day deadline is not jurisdictional. 2023 WL 2585816, at *2. Failure to meet the deadline results in a waiver of the right to a hearing under § 2308.456(d), not a loss of the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Id.

E. Reporter’s Record on Appeal:

An appellant bears the burden to request the court reporter to record the proceedings and to bring forward a sufficient record to show error committed by the trial court. Smith, 2022 WL 17835217, at *2. In Smith v. Madera Residential-Rock Creek Apartments, the appellant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence failed because no reporter’s record of the county court at law trial was made, and the appellant had not requested one. Id. at *1, *2, *3. Without a reporter’s record, appellate courts presume that the trial court heard sufficient evidence to make all necessary findings in support of its judgment. Id. at *1, *2.

F. Attorney’s Fees:

The Act provides that the court “may award (1) court costs and attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.” Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2308.458(e)(1).

Pleading: As established in Brazos Valley Roadrunners, LLC v. Herrera, a formal written pleading requesting attorney’s fees is not strictly required for an appeal to the county court at law from a justice court tow hearing; an oral request made during the trial de novo can suffice. 708 S.W.3d at 290, 292-93.

Evidence: The amount of attorney’s fees awarded must be supported by sufficient evidence. Herrera, 708 S.W.3d at 293. In Herrera, an award of $1,390.50 in attorney’s fees was modified to $750 because the only evidence presented was the attorney’s testimony of charging a flat fee of $750, which was clear, direct, positive, and uncontroverted. Id. at 290, 293.

Cross-Appeal for Fees: An appellee who seeks to alter the trial court’s judgment to obtain additional relief, such as attorney’s fees not awarded, must file a notice of appeal. Davila v. M & M Towing & Recovery, Inc, No. 13-20-00140-CV, 2021 WL 3775660, at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Aug. 26, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). Failure to do so results in waiver of the issue. Id.

Scope of Tow Hearings in Justice Court 

The issues at a tow hearing are statutorily limited. Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2308.458(c) (Westlaw through 2023 Legis. Sess.). These issues are generally restricted to:

1.     Whether probable cause existed for the removal and placement of the vehicle. Id.; Wright, 2024 WL 4052335, at *2.

2.     Whether a towing charge imposed or collected in connection with the removal or placement of the vehicle was greater than the amount authorized by the applicable statute or by a political subdivision. Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 2308.458(c)(2)-(4); Wright, 2024 WL 4052335, at *2.

Claims outside this narrow scope, such as breach of contract (unless directly related to authorization for parking), DTPA violations, or broader civil rights complaints, are not proper subjects for a tow hearing. Wright, 2024 WL 4052335, at *2. As demonstrated in Wright, attempting to litigate such issues within the confines of a tow hearing appeal will likely lead to their dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Id.. Similarly, in Zhao v. Two Steppin Towing, the court noted that damages for an allegedly damaged transmission were not recoverable under Subchapter J of Chapter 2308, which governs these hearings, as those sections apply to proceedings under Subchapter I. 2022 WL 11456754, at *5 & n.11.

Emerging Trends and Other Considerations

Pro Se Litigants: Several cases involve pro se appellants. E.g., Ellis, 2024 WL 4707815, at *1; Wright, 2024 WL 4052335, at *1; Kadow, 2022 WL 17841131, at *1; Smith, 2022 WL 17835217, at *1 (appellant pro se on appeal); Zhao, 2022 WL 11456754, at *1; Golden, 2022 WL 1412303, at *1. While courts may construe pro se briefs liberally, these litigants are still held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure, including rules on briefing and preservation of error. Wright, 2024 WL 4052335, at *3; Golden, 2022 WL 1412303, at *2. Failure to adequately brief issues or provide sufficient record citations can lead to waiver of arguments. Wright, 2024 WL 4052335, at *3; Golden, 2022 WL 1412303, at *3, *4.

Distinction Between “Consent” and “Nonconsent” Tows: Davila v. M & M Towing & Recovery, Inc. clarifies that the Act creates a binary system: a tow is either a “consent tow” (summoned by the owner or operator of the vehicle or by a person who has possession, custody, or control of the vehicle, excluding incident management or private property tows per the definition) or a “nonconsent tow” (any tow of a motor vehicle that is not a consent tow, including incident management and private property tows). 2021 WL 3775660, at *2. There is no third category. Id. If a vehicle is towed without the owner’s consent, it is a nonconsent tow, and the owner or operator is entitled to a hearing on whether probable cause existed for the removal and placement. Id. at *3.

Clarity of Towing Authorization: Disputes often arise regarding who authorized a tow, particularly when property ownership or management is complex. In Zhao, much confusion arose from whether the parking facility owner (Joshi) or his business entity (Different Corp.) authorized the tow, highlighting the need for clear documentation and understanding of who possesses the authority to request a tow. 2022 WL 11456754, at *1, *2.

Importance of Record Keeping: For all parties involved, maintaining clear records—parking payment receipts, towing authorization forms, photographs of signage and vehicle condition, and correspondence—is crucial for prevailing in these disputes. This is implicitly supported by the factual discussions in cases like Niles (payment of fee), Smith (vehicle condition), and Ellis (signage).

Conclusion and Guidance for Justice Courts

Justice courts conducting tow hearings should focus narrowly on the statutory issues:

1.     Existence of Probable Cause: This involves examining the facts and circumstances leading to the tow, including signage, vehicle condition, payment of fees, and any specific authorization given or lacking.

2.     Maximum Regulated Rate Compliance: The court must determine if the towing and storage fees charged comply with any state or locally regulated rates.

Justice courts should be mindful that the 14-day deadline to request a hearing is not jurisdictional but a waivable deadline. Mortaji, 2023 WL 2585816, at *2. Furthermore, while procedural rules are relaxed compared to higher courts, the fundamental aim is a fair determination of these limited issues. The development of case law, particularly regarding pleading of attorney’s fees as seen in Herrera, and the non-jurisdictional nature of the filing deadline as affirmed in Mortaji, provides important guidance for the consistent adjudication of these common disputes.