AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• TexasFile, LLC, a Texas-based company providing online access to real property records, requested electronic copies of all Lea County's real property records and associated indexes from the County Clerk. The County responded by offering access to physical records and computers for public use, with fees for printed copies, but did not agree to provide the records in electronic format as requested by TexasFile. After several exchanges and a proposal from the County that TexasFile found unreasonable, TexasFile filed a lawsuit alleging the fee set by the County was unreasonable and amounted to a denial of its records request under various acts (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Lea County: The complaint was dismissed on the grounds that TexasFile failed to state a claim under the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) because its records request had not been denied, and neither the Public Records Act nor the Recording Act provided TexasFile a private right of action (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (TexasFile): Argued that the County's fee for electronic copies of real property records was unreasonable under IPRA, the Public Records Act, and the Recording Act. TexasFile sought a declaratory judgment declaring the County's quoted fees unreasonable as a matter of law (paras 4-5, 6).
• Defendants-Appellees (The County and Keith Manes): Contended that TexasFile had no cause of action under IPRA because its request for inspection was never denied, as the County made clear the records were available for inspection at its offices. They also maintained that neither the Public Records Act nor the Recording Act provided TexasFile a private right of action (para 5, 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the County's fee for electronic copies of real property records was unreasonable under IPRA, the Public Records Act, and the Recording Act.
• Whether TexasFile's request for electronic copies of real property records was effectively denied under IPRA due to the County's fee proposal.
• Whether the Public Records Act or the Recording Act provides a private right of action for TexasFile in this case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of TexasFile’s complaint, albeit on different grounds, concluding that the Recording Act’s production provisions governed the County’s obligation with respect to the records request at issue and that the complaint failed to allege any violation of that act (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Judges Linda M. Vanzi and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, found that the Recording Act, being more specific than IPRA regarding the production of real property records, governed the County's obligation to respond to TexasFile's request. The Court noted that the Recording Act does not require electronic production of documents and permits the County to charge up to $1.00 per page, thus TexasFile's complaint failed to state a claim under the Recording Act. The Court also considered legislative history and statutory construction principles, concluding that the Legislature did not intend for IPRA's electronic production requirement to apply to real property records requests like TexasFile's. The Court further concluded that TexasFile failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, as it did not allege a violation of the Recording Act, and therefore, the district court's dismissal of the complaint was appropriate (paras 8-26).