Filing “With the Court” Under Property Code § 21.018(a) Means Filing With the Clerk (Including E‑Filing): Objection Period in Texas Condemnation Cases Starts Upon Clerk Filing

Introduction

This per curiam decision from the Supreme Court of Texas clarifies a recurring, practical question in eminent domain proceedings: When do the statutory deadlines to object to a special commissioners’ award begin to run? In REME, L.L.C. v. The State of Texas, No. 23-0707 (Tex. Feb. 21, 2025), the Court holds that the phrase “file their findings with the court” in Texas Property Code § 21.018(a) is satisfied by filing with the trial court clerk, including via electronic filing. As a result, the twenty-day clock (measured to the “first Monday following the 20th day”) begins to run when the commissioners’ findings are placed in the clerk’s custody—not when the trial judge later receives, signs, or otherwise acknowledges the filing.

The case arose from the State’s condemnation of approximately one-tenth of an acre in Montgomery County. After disinterested commissioners assessed $1.1 million in damages, the State e-filed the commissioners’ findings with the court clerk on a Friday (April 16, 2021). The trial judge signed the award on the following Monday (April 19). The State filed its objections on May 14—timely if the clock started on April 19, but untimely if it started on April 16. The trial court held the objections untimely; the court of appeals reversed; and the Supreme Court of Texas reversed again, reinstating the trial court’s judgment.

Summary of the Opinion

Holding: For purposes of Texas Property Code § 21.018(a), the commissioners’ award is “filed with the court” when it is filed with the court clerk. Filing “with the court” includes filing with the clerk.
Triggering event for the objection deadline: The deadline to object begins to run on the date the commissioners’ findings are filed with the clerk (including e-filing), assuming proper notice.
Application: Because the State e-filed the award with the clerk on April 16, the “first Monday following the 20th day” was May 10. The State’s May 14 objection was untimely.
Rejection of contrary views:
- The court of appeals erred in concluding that filing “with the court” is not complete until the judge receives the award.
- The concurring view below—that a “proposed” award does not start the clock—was also rejected. The “proposed” label reflected only the award’s status during the objection period, not its legal effectiveness to begin that period.
Disposition: Petition for review granted; court of appeals’ judgment reversed; trial court’s judgment reinstated, without oral argument (Tex. R. App. P. 59.1).

Procedural Posture and Key Dates

Commissioners’ award: $1.1 million.
Friday, April 16, 2021: State electronically filed the commissioners’ findings with the clerk; clerk stamped “Received and E-Filed for Record.”
Monday, April 19, 2021: Judge signed the award and awarded commissioners’ fees; clerk mailed notice reflecting judge’s signature and attaching the April 16 file-marked award.
Friday, May 14, 2021: State filed written objections.
Trial court: Held the State’s objection untimely and adopted the commissioners’ award as judgment.
Court of appeals: Reversed, holding that filing “with the court” was not complete until judicial receipt.
Supreme Court of Texas: Reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Considered

Statutory framework (Texas Property Code):
- § 21.011–.014: Administrative phase of condemnation; commissioners assess damages.
- § 21.018(a): Objections must be filed “on or before the first Monday following the 20th day after the day the commissioners file their findings with the court.”
- § 21.048: Commissioners’ award is filed “with the court,” along with costs.
- § 21.049: Judge must inform the clerk of the decision on the day of filing or the next working day; clerk must send notice by certified mail.
- § 21.061: Absent timely objections, the judge “shall adopt” the commissioners’ findings as the court’s judgment.
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (used as persuasive guidance at the administrative phase):
- Rule 74 (“Filing with the Court Defined”): Filings are made with the clerk unless the judge permits filing directly with the judge, in which case the judge must note the date/time and forward to the clerk.
- Rule 21: Pleadings and applications to the court must be filed with the clerk in writing (unless presented in open court).
- Rule 21(f)(5): An electronically filed document is deemed filed when transmitted to the filer’s electronic filing service provider.
Key case law:
- MCI Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Hinton, 329 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. 2010): Statutory interpretation reviewed de novo.
- KMS Retail Rowlett, LP v. City of Rowlett, 593 S.W.3d 175 (Tex. 2019): Plain-meaning approach, considering text in context.
- RAYBURN v. STATE, 356 S.W.2d 774 (Tex. 1962): Rules of Civil Procedure do not extend statutory time in proceedings “originally administrative,” though the Rules can inform common understanding of “filing.”
- JAMAR v. PATTERSON, 868 S.W.2d 318 (Tex. 1993); Biffle v. Morton Rubber Indus., Inc., 785 S.W.2d 143 (Tex. 1990); STANDARD FIRE INS. CO. v. LACOKE, 585 S.W.2d 678 (Tex. 1979): A document is “filed” when tendered to or placed in the custody or control of the clerk; file-marking is not dispositive of the moment of filing.
- Dealers Elec. Supply Co. v. Scroggins Constr. Co., 292 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009): Courts do not revert to prior text in a recodification when the current text is direct and unambiguous.
Government Code § 311.014(b): General rule for computing time. The Court noted but did not decide the parties’ computation issues because it held the earlier filing date controlled.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied a textualist analysis, anchoring its decision in the ordinary and technical meaning of filing “with the court” within the broader statutory and procedural context.

Plain meaning and common practice: Chapter 21 does not prescribe a distinct filing mechanism for commissioners’ findings. Texas practice and the Rules of Civil Procedure establish that filings are ordinarily made with the court clerk. Rule 74 expressly defines “filing with the court” as filing with the clerk unless the judge accepts a filing directly (and must then promptly transmit it to the clerk). Rule 21 likewise contemplates filing with the clerk. This common understanding informed the Court’s reading of § 21.018(a).
“Filed” means placed in the clerk’s custody or control: The Court invoked a consistent line of authority—Jamar, Biffle, and LaCoke—to reaffirm that a document is “filed” when it is tendered to or otherwise placed under the clerk’s control. In the e-filing context, Rule 21(f)(5) deems the filing accomplished upon transmission to the filer’s EFSP. Here, the State’s e-filing with the clerk on April 16 met that definition.
Recodification does not displace the current text: The predecessor statute required filing “with the county judge.” The 1983 Property Code recodification uses “with the court.” Although the recodification was described as nonsubstantive, the current text is “direct and unambiguous,” and “court” is not synonymous with “county judge.” Under Dealers Electric, courts apply the current text as written rather than the former wording when the present statute is clear. The substitution of “court” for “county judge” therefore matters; “court” encompasses filing with the clerk.
Section 21.049’s notice mechanics do not control the filing event: Section 21.049 obligates the judge to inform the clerk of the commissioners’ decision when the judge is the initial recipient (for example, if commissioners hand the decision to the judge). But nothing in § 21.049 prevents a party from filing the commissioners’ findings directly with the clerk. Where, as here, the State properly filed with the clerk, the time to object runs from that filing date.
“Proposed award” label is immaterial: The award’s designation as “proposed” simply reflected its posture during the objection window; it did not delay or nullify the effectiveness of the filing for purposes of starting the statutory clock.
Outcome-determinative application: Because the State filed on Friday, April 16, the twentieth day after was Thursday, May 7; the “first Monday following” was May 10. The State’s May 14 objection was therefore late. The Court emphasized, “Assuming proper notice, the deadline to object to the award amount is calculated from that day.”

Impact and Practical Implications

The decision establishes a bright-line rule in Texas condemnation practice and offers broader interpretive guidance:

Clear trigger for objections in condemnation: The clock starts when the commissioners’ findings are filed with the clerk—regardless of when, if at all, the judge later signs, acknowledges receipt, or communicates with the clerk. Parties can no longer rely on the timing of judicial endorsement to measure their objection deadlines.
E-filing timestamps matter: Because electronically filed documents are deemed filed upon transmission to the EFSP (Rule 21(f)(5)), the precise timestamp of the e-filing transmission controls. Docketing systems should track EFSP timestamps, not merely clerk “acceptance” or later judicial actions.
Clerk notice and due process: The Court’s caveat—“Assuming proper notice”—signals that parties should still ensure compliance with § 21.049’s certified-mail notice requirement and general due-process principles. The decision does not resolve what happens if notice is defective or absent. Expect future litigation on whether and how lack of notice affects the objection deadline.
Who may file the commissioners’ findings: Although § 21.018 and related provisions speak in terms of the commissioners filing “their” findings, the Court confirmed that nothing prevents a party (here, the condemnor) from filing the commissioners’ award directly with the clerk. That filing starts the clock.
Uniformity beyond condemnation: While the holding interprets § 21.018(a), its reasoning aligns with long-standing filing principles under the Rules and cases like Jamar and Biffle. The decision may be cited as persuasive authority wherever a statute uses “file with the court” without specifying the mechanism.
Recodification guidance: The Court’s insistence on applying clear, current text—even when a recodification was intended to be nonsubstantive—reinforces a significant interpretive norm: unambiguous statutory language governs, and courts will not “look back” to prior wording to reintroduce superseded constraints (see Dealers Electric).

Practice Pointers

For condemning authorities:
- Filing the commissioners’ award with the clerk starts the objection clock immediately; if strategic timing matters, plan accordingly and ensure proper notice is given promptly.
- Do not assume that judicial signature or acknowledgment affects the deadline; it does not.
For landowners and their counsel:
- Monitor the clerk’s docket and e-service notices closely; do not wait for judicial signatures or formal adoption to begin calculating deadlines.
- Calendar the “first Monday following the 20th day” from the clerk filing date and file objections early to avoid disputes.
For clerks and courts:
- Prompt file-stamping and notice under § 21.049 remain critical to ensure due process and avoid collateral disputes over “proper notice.”
- Where a judge receives the award first, promptly transmit to the clerk and ensure the filing date is noted, consistent with Rule 74.

Unresolved or Narrowed Issues

Time computation nuances: The Court did not decide the parties’ debate under Government Code § 311.014(b) regarding how to compute the twentieth day when the twentieth day falls on a weekend. Practitioners should continue to apply the Government Code and preservation rules carefully.
Defective or delayed notice: The opinion’s “assuming proper notice” qualifier leaves open the effect of inadequate notice (statutory or constitutional) on the running of the § 21.018(a) deadline.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Condemnation phases: Texas condemnation has an administrative phase (special commissioners assess damages) and, if objections are timely, a judicial phase (the case proceeds like any other civil lawsuit). An objection filed by the deadline under § 21.018(a) converts the proceeding into a judicial cause (§ 21.018(b)).
“File with the court” vs. “file with the judge”: Filing “with the court” ordinarily means filing with the clerk. A judge may accept a filing directly, but then must note the date/time and promptly transmit it to the clerk (Rule 74).
E-filing effective time: In Texas, an electronically filed document is deemed filed when transmitted to the electronic filing service provider (Rule 21(f)(5)), even if the clerk’s acceptance occurs later.
Nonsubstantive recodification: When statutes are recodified, the Legislature often states no substantive change is intended. But courts apply the current text if it is clear; they do not revive old wording or meanings when the new language is unambiguous.
Automatic adoption absent objection: If no timely objection is filed, the trial court “shall adopt” the commissioners’ findings as the court’s judgment (§ 21.061). The judge’s signature acknowledging receipt is not the legal trigger for deadlines; the clerk filing is.
“First Monday following the 20th day”: This is a statutory way of fixing a predictable filing deadline. You count twenty days after the filing, then pick the next Monday as the last day to object. The precise counting method can implicate the Government Code; when in doubt, compute conservatively.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Texas has established a bright-line rule for condemnation cases: Filing “with the court” under Property Code § 21.018(a) occurs when the commissioners’ findings are filed with the clerk, including by e-filing. That filing starts the twenty-day objection period, culminating in the “first Monday following the 20th day.” Judicial receipt or signature does not delay or otherwise affect the deadline. The decision aligns condemnation practice with long-settled filing principles, provides certainty to litigants, and underscores that unambiguous recodified text governs over prior formulations. While issues about time computation and the effect of defective notice remain for another day, the core directive is clear: watch the clerk’s file mark (and e-filing timestamp), not the judge’s signature, to preserve objections in Texas eminent domain proceedings.