Westworth Village is attempting to eminent domain a man’s property for a private company’s golf practice facility, arguing that the project qualifies as a public park.
Now, the Texas Supreme Court will hear the dispute after an appeals court sided with property owner Jim Burgess, finding that the city had failed to show the taking was for a “public purpose.”
Background
Burgess owns a 3.548-acre plot of land situated on the south side of the Hawks Creek Golf Course, which is owned and operated by the City of Westworth Village.
In September 2021, Westworth Village Mayor Kelly Jones announced in a press release that the city had been negotiating behind the scenes with UnderPar Life LLC (UPL), a private golf course entertainment company, and would unveil the new plans for the golf course at a public hearing.
Despite not owning the land, the city announced that it would “lease the non-golf-course area—driving range, clubhouse, parking area, practice areas—to UPL on a ninety-nine-year lease, and City will continue to own and operate the golf course.” Specifically, the land was to be developed by UPL as a “short-game practice area.”
However, Westworth Village and UPL were unable to negotiate a purchase of the land from Burgess at $1.1 million. This led the city to initiate condemnation proceedings. After Burgess rejected an award of over $1.5 million, the city proceeded with its suit to condemn the land.
Westworth Village claimed that the condemnation is for a “park,” so it falls under the general scope of “public use.” Burgess, however, challenges that there is no “public use” in transferring his property to another private entity.
The trial court overruled Burgess’ challenge and left the value of the land to be tried by jury. After the jury determined the value to be $1.3 million, the court entered judgment for the city, condemning the land for that amount. The court also granted Burgess’ request for court costs.
Burgess appealed the condemnation and Westworth Village appealed the court costs to the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth. It was presided over by Justices Mike Wallach, Elizabeth Kerr, and Brian Walker.
The Appeal
On June 19, 2025, the Second Court released its opinion, siding with Burgess. The court explained how recent statutory changes and constitutional amendments regarding eminent domain restrict the city’s actions in this case.
Through the passage of Proposition 11 in 2009, “[T]he people of Texas voted to limit the scope of takings for ‘public use’ by excluding situations where property is being condemned for transfer to a private entity where the transfer of the condemned property is to a private entity for the ‘primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.’”
The court concluded that this was precisely what the City of Westworth Village had done. It therefore ruled that the city had failed to demonstrate that the condemnation was for “public use,” reversing the trial court order and remanding the case for further proceedings.
“These circumstances help explain why our law directs Texas courts to carefully scrutinize any exercise of eminent-domain authority,” wrote Justice Wallach. “Condemnation is one area in which the government must turn sharp corners. It is a fit role for the judiciary to ensure that the government stays in its lane.”
Westworth Village appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Texas, which granted review on October 2, 2026. Oral arguments are scheduled for January 11, 2027.
If you or anyone you know has information regarding court cases, please contact our tip line: tips@texasscorecard.com.
