City of Dallas v. VSC, LLC (347 S.W.3d 231, 2011)

Chief Justice JEFFERSON

delivered the opinion of the Court,

joined by Justice HECHT, Justice MEDINA, Justice GREEN, Justice WILLETT, and Justice LEHRMANN.

We expect our government to retrieve stolen property and return it to the rightful owner. What happens, though, when a person claims an interest in property the government has seized? In this case, the City of Dallas seized vehicles, which it alleged were stolen, from a company that was entitled to petition for their return. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 47.01 a(a). Instead of pursuing its statutory remedy, the company sued, alleging that its interest in those vehicles had been taken without just compensation. We hold that the availability of the statutory remedy precludes a takings claim. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment dismissing this suit.

I. Background

Beginning in the summer of 2002 and continuing through 2004, the City’s police department seized a number of vehicles from VSC, a licensed vehicle storage facility. VSC initially alleged that the City seized 326 vehicles. City police officers testified that all of the seized vehicles had been reported stolen or otherwise displayed indicia of theft, such as altered vehicle identification numbers. VSC’s records confirmed that many of these vehicles had been reported stolen.

Several days after the initial seizure, VSC sued the City, asserting a lien for fees related to the vehicles’ storage and contending that the City’s actions amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The City removed the suit to federal court, which took jurisdiction over all but the takings claim, which it remanded to state court along with the related declaratory judgment action. The City filed a plea to the trial court’s jurisdiction on several grounds, which that court denied. The court of appeals affirmed with respect to all but one issue. 242 S.W.3d 584, 599. We granted the petition for review. 53 Tex. Sup.Ct. J. 13, 15 (Oct. 23, 2009).

II. VSC’s Takings Claim

A. The Statutory Remedy

Texas law permits a police officer to seize, without a warrant, vehicles that reasonably appear to have been stolen. Tex. Transp. Code § 501.158(a) (permitting the warrantless seizure of allegedly stolen vehicles if an officer has probable cause). Vehicles seized under that authority are treated as stolen for purposes of custody and disposition. Id. § 501.158(b). But it may turn out that the property was not stolen at all, that it has multiple owners, or that it is subject to other claims, like a lien or leasehold interest. For these and other reasons, the Legislature enacted chapter 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which protects a person’s claimed interest in seized property. When there is a dispute as to property ownership, an officer possessing allegedly stolen property must secure it until the court directs its disposition. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 47.01(a). That officer must file with the court a schedule of the property and its value and must “notify the court of the names and addresses of each party known to the officer who has a claim to possession of the seized property.” Id. art. 47.03.

Because the officer may not know the identity of all persons with a claim to possession, the statute provides that any person with a property interest may assert that interest directly with the court. Id. art. 47.01 a(a) (“[U]pon the petition of an interested person” a judge “may hold a hearing to determine the right to possession of the property.”). During that hearing “any interested person” may present evidence establishing ownership. Id. art. 47.01 a(c). The individual proving the superior right to the property is entitled to its return, subject to the State’s use of it in prosecuting related crimes. Id. arts. 47.01a(a)(l)-(a)(2), 47.04. Occasionally— perhaps frequently — the property is never claimed and the government either sells or destroys it. Id. arts. 18.17, 47.06. If the property is sold, its true owner may recover the proceeds. Id. arts. 18.17(e), 47.07.

Here, forty-seven of the seized vehicles were the subject of chapter 47 proceedings initiated by the City and adjudicated in municipal court. The court awarded some of the cars to VSC, some to the cars’ owners, and others to the owners on the condition that VSC’s fees were first satisfied. Thus, in many cases, VSC regained possession of the vehicles that the City had seized, and in others it was awarded compensation. VSC concedes that this procedure, when properly used, adequately protects its interests. As such, VSC has not brought takings claims with respect to the vehicles for which municipal court hearings were held.

For the other 270 vehicles, VSC claims that it does not know how the City disposed of them — or if it did. Though VSC could have initiated chapter 47 proceedings to assert its interest in the vehicles, it argues here that if the City wished to dispose of the vehicles, it was required to give VSC notice prior to hearings on their disposition. Any failure to do so, VSC argues, amounts to an unconstitutional taking of its asserted lien interest. We disagree and hold that because VSC had actual knowledge of the vehicles’ seizure — VSC knew the cars were seized from its lot, and it knew who seized them — it was required to pursue the chapter 47 proceedings. We hold further that VSC must have utilized those procedures before a takings suit can be viable.

The constitution waives immunity for suits brought under the Takings Clause, but this does not mean that a constitutional suit may be brought in every instance. The Legislature’s broad authority to prescribe compensatory remedies for takings is well-established, so long as those methods comply with due process and other constitutional requirements. See, e.g., Secombe v. R.R. Co., 90 U.S. 108, 117-18, 23 Wall. 108, 23 L.Ed. 67 (1874) (holding that the Legislature has broad authority to create eminent domain procedures). When the Legislature creates such a statutory procedure, recourse may be had to a constitutional suit only where the procedure proves inadequate, for it is not the taking of property, as such, that raises constitutional concerns, but the taking of property without just compensation. See Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 194, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985) (“The [Takings Clause] does not proscribe the taking of property; it proscribes taking without just compensation.”). When there exists provision for compensation— or, as here, for the property’s return — a constitutional claim is necessarily premature. See id. at 194-95,105 S.Ct. 3108 (“If the government has provided an adequate process for obtaining compensation, and if resort to that process ‘[yields] just compensation,’ then the property owner ‘has no claim against the Government’ for a taking.” (quoting Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1013, 1018 n. 21, 104 S.Ct. 2862, 81 L.Ed.2d 815 (1984)) (alteration in original)); see also Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Constr. Co., 309 U.S. 18, 21, 60 S.Ct. 413, 84 L.Ed. 554 (1940) (refusing to pass upon a takings claim because of the existence of a statute “afford[ing] a plain and adequate remedy”); Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U.S. 95,104, 52 S.Ct. 267, 76 L.Ed. 637 (1932) (holding that governmental action was not unconstitutional because “the complainant can recover just compensation under the Tucker Act in an action at law ... [and t]he compensation which he may obtain in such a proceeding will be the same as that which he” is entitled to under the constitution); Crozier v. Fried. Krwpp Ak-tiengesellschaft, 224 U.S. 290, 306-07, 32 S.Ct. 488, 56 L.Ed. 771 (1912) (rejecting a constitutional challenge on the basis of the Takings Clause because the relevant statute provided a compensatory mechanism).

Immediately following the vehicles’ seizure, however, when VSC filed its district court lawsuit, VSC had a legal avenue through which it could potentially regain possession or compensation. As the dissent acknowledges, operation of the chapter 47 procedure might have “moot[ed] VSC’s takings claim.” 347 S.W.3d at 249. This is significant, because if a remedial procedure might have obviated the need for a takings suit, then the property simply had not, prior to the procedure’s use, been taken tvithout just compensation,. Because VSC could seek possession or compensation through a remedial statutory scheme, it could not ignore that scheme in favor of initiating a constitutional takings suit.

Hays v. Port of Seattle, 251 U.S. 233, 40 S.Ct. 125, 64 L.Ed. 243 (1920), is a good illustration of this rule. There, the Supreme Court refused to permit a claimant to bring a takings suit, despite the fact that the government had seized his property for a public purpose. Hays, 251 U.S. at 238, 40 S.Ct. 125. The Court emphasized that the state provided a procedure by which the claimant could seek just compensation. Id. (“[T]his statute constitutes an adequate provision for assured payment of any compensation due to complainant .... ”). Thus, the Supreme Court held that there could be no taking because the claimant bypassed the compensatory procedure.

As in Hays, the claimant here alleges that a taking has occurred. As in Hays, the Legislature has provided a procedure capable of “constituting] an adequate provision,” id,., for compensation — here, actual possession. And, as in Hays, the claimant here has ignored the compensatory scheme in favor of a constitutional claim. Thus, we reject VSC’s taking claim because it did not pursué an established remedy to recover its claimed interest in the seized property.

B. Notice

VSC suggests, however, that chapter 47 is constitutionally infirm because it does not require that the City notify claimed owners of these proceedings. Disputes about proper notice invoke procedural due process, not the Takings Clause. In Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 543, 125 S.Ct. 2074, 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (2005), the Supreme Court observed that takings and due process are distinct inquiries and held that due process claims must be addressed first because whether there has been proper notice is a question “logically prior to and distinct from” whether there has been a taking. The Takings Clause guarantees compensation “in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). If due process is violated due to failure of notice, however, “that is the end of the inquiry” because “[n]o amount of compensation can authorize such action.” Id. Thus, VSC’s failure-of-notice claim is more properly considered as alleging a due process violation than a taking. Regardless, we believe that VSC’s actual notice of the vehicles’ seizures was constitutionally sufficient and that it therefore had the burden of pursuing the chapter 47 remedy.

In Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865.(1950), the Supreme Court concluded that due process is satisfied if notice is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Id. at 314, 70 S.Ct. 652. The Mullane Court focused on the requirement that the parties be actually notified of an action that might affect their interests. Id. at 315, 70 S.Ct. 652 (“The chance of actual notice is further reduced when, as here, the notice required does not even name those whose attention it is supposed to attract....”). The Supreme Court recognized “the impossibility of setting up a rigid formula as to the kind of notice that must be given,” holding that the “notice required will vary with circumstances and conditions.” Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112, 115, 77 S.Ct. 200, 1 L.Ed.2d 178 (1956).

In City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234, 241, 119 S.Ct. 678, 142 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999), the Supreme Court held that actual notice is constitutionally sufficient notice of a remedial procedure when that procedure is easily discoverable. There, the police seized personal property from Perkins’s home under a valid search warrant. West Covina, 525 U.S. at 236, 119 S.Ct. 678. The police did not suspect Perkins of a crime but, rather, were pursuing a former boarder who was purportedly involved in a homicide. Id. As required by statute, the police left Perkins a warrant that listed the seized property and named the issuing magistrate and executing officer. Id. at 236-37, 119 S.Ct. 678. Rather than seek a court order, Perkins sued the officers and alleged that the remedies for the property’s return did not satisfy due process. Id. at 237-38, 119 S.Ct. 678. The Supreme Court distinguished Mul-lóme, writing that while individualized notice of the seizure itself is necessary,

[n]o similar rationale justifies requiring individualized notice of state-law remedies which, like those at issue here, are established by published, generally available state statutes and case law. Once the property owner is informed that his property has been seized, he can turn to these public sources to learn about the remedial procedures available to him. The City need not take other steps to inform him of his options.

Id. at 241, 119 S.Ct. 678. The notice contained in the search warrant was sufficient process and Perkins was then required to initiate proceedings for the property’s return. Id. at 242-44,119 S.Ct. 678.

The facts in this case mirror those in West Covina. The police legally seized VSC’s property, and VSC was aware of what property was seized and by whom. The Legislature provided a statutory remedy for the return of the property that was easily discoverable from public sources. See Tex.Code Crim. P. ch. 47. Having given constitutionally sufficient notice of the seizures, the City was under no obligation to invite VSC to initiate chapter 47 proceedings.

III. Declaratory Judgments

The City filed a plea to the trial court’s jurisdiction as to several declarations requested by VSC. The trial court denied the plea, and the court of appeals affirmed despite the fact that VSC had by then lost its license to operate a vehicle storage facility and therefore could no longer store the type of vehicles involved in this suit. The court of appeals noted that VSC’s requested declarations were not by their terms limited to nonconsensually-towed vehicles, and on this basis it refused to grant the plea. 242 S.W.3d at 597. This, however, conflicts with our rule that a declaratory judgment action may lie only where there is a “substantial controversy involving genuine conflict of tangible interests.” Bonham State Bank v. Beadle, 907 S.W.2d 465, 467 (Tex.1995) (internal quotations omitted). But with regard to the sort of vehicles VSC may still store, there is no apparent conflict at all, and as such the relief sought is highly speculative and theoretical, incapable of settling any actual controversy between the parties. See id.; State ex rel. McKie v. Bullock, 491 S.W.2d 659, 660 (Tex.1973) (holding that there could be no declaratory judgment action where a declaration would not settle an actual controversy between the parties).

IV. Conclusion

VSC received all of the process to which it was entitled. A party cannot claim a lack of just compensation based on its own failure to invoke a law designed to adjudicate such a claim. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment dismissing the case. Tex.R.App. P. 60.2(c).

Justice WAINWRIGHT delivered a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice JOHNSON and Justice GUZMAN.

. See Tex. Occ.Code ch. 2303. A vehicle storage facility is a parking facility that is used to store or park at least ten vehicles each year. Id. § 2303.002(8)(B). The chapter does not regulate vehicles parked with the consent of the owner. Id. § 2303.003(a). VSC’s license to operate as a vehicle storage facility was revoked sometime after the occurrence of the facts that form the basis of this case.

. The precise total is disputed, with the City claiming that 324 vehicles were seized. In any event, VSC ultimately abandoned its claims to 47 of the seized vehicles and another 25 or 27 were either not seized or were the result of duplications or inaccuracies in VSC's records.

. VSC alleges a taking under both the Texas and United States Constitutions. Where the parties have not argued that there are any material differences between the state and federal versions of a constitutional provision, we typically treat the two clauses as congruent. See New Times, Inc. v. Isaacks, 146 S.W.3d 144, 150 (Tex.2004).

. See VSC, LLC v. City of Dallas, No. 3:04-CV-1046-D (N.D.Tex. Feb. 23, 2005) (order remanding some claims to state court and retaining jurisdiction over others). The federal court retained jurisdiction over VSC's constitutional claims alleging an unlawful search and seizure, as well as its pendent state-law tort claims. See id.

. The court of appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the plea with respect to VSC’s claim that the City took, damaged, or destroyed VSC’s property for a private purpose. 242 S.W.3d 584, 596. VSC does not challenge that ruling here.

. We called for the views of the Solicitor General, who submitted a brief on behalf of the State of Texas as amicus curiae.

. Though chapter 47 proceedings are typically brought in municipal court, that venue is not exclusive. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. § 47.01(d). Claims under chapter 47 may be brought in the same suit as other claims.

. A chapter 47 proceeding initiated in municipal or justice court may be appealed to a county court or statutory county court, where they are "governed by the applicable rules of procedure for appeals for civil cases in justice courts to a county court or statutory county court.” Tex.Code.Crim. Proc. 47.12(b). Matters appealed to county court are tried de novo. Tex.R. Civ. P. 574b.

. The owner of property sold pursuant to chapter 47 may recover the proceeds of the sale under the same circumstances as may the owner of property sold under the abandoned and unclaimed property statute. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 47.07. Thus, the real owner must file a claim for the proceeds "not later than the 30th day after the date of [the property’s] disposition.” Id. art. 18.17(e).

. We assume without deciding that a licensed vehicle storage facility may have a garageman's lien in a stored vehicle and that a garageman’s lien may exist in stolen property. See Tex. Prop.Code § 70.003(c) (providing for a lien in vehicles “left for care” with a garageman). The City disputes both of these contentions.

. The dissent provides a number of quotations from VSC's pleadings to argue that VSC did ask for chapter 47 relief in the trial court. While VSC asked to be declared an interested party entitled to notice under chapter 47, it pointedly did not seek a hearing. To the contrary, VSC disclaimed any responsibility te) file under chapter 47 and argued, as it continues to argue here, that it was the City's sole responsibility to seek such hearings. Likewise, VSCs response to the City’s plea to the jurisdiction focused solely on its takings claim — the only claim asserted in its live pleading. This does not amount to a request for chapter 47 relief. VSC was required to protect its alleged property interest by seeking relief under chapter 47. The statute authorized VSC to seek such relief, and the reasons for its failure to do so are irrelevant. Cf. 347 S.W.3d at 247 (suggesting that VSC failed to request a hearing because it "did not believe that it could bring a claim under Chapter 47”).

. See Steele v. City of Houston, 603 S.W.2d 786, 791 (Tex. 1980) ("The Constitution itself is the authorization for compensation for the destruction of property and is a waiver of governmental immunity for the taking, damaging or destruction of property for public use.”).

. The dissent contends that Williamson County's state-court litigation requirement does not apply here because that decision was based on federalism concerns not present in this case. 347 S.W.3d at 245. We believe, though, that the Court's reasoning has direct relevance. Williamson County requires complainants alleging a taking to file inverse condemnation suits in state court before bringing suit in federal court. Williamson Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 186, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). The Court began with the basic proposition that the Takings Clause only prohibits takings without just compensation. Id. at 194, 105 S.Ct. 3108. Citing Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 104 S.Ct. 2862, 81 L.Ed.2d 815 (1984), the Court explained that it had already interpreted this to mean that "taking claims against the Federal Government are premature until the property owner has availed itself of” remedial statutory procedures. Williamson Cnty., 473 U.S. at 195, 105 S.Ct. 3108. The Court further held that a state-court inverse condemnation claim was a Ruckelshaus-type remedial procedure, and that a property owner therefore could not bring a federal takings claim until he had proceeded in state court. Id. at 195-96, 105 S.Ct. 3108. This second holding has been criticized, as it has made it more difficult for property owners to bring takings claims against state governments in federal courts. See San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323, 348, 125 S.Ct. 2491, 162 L.Ed.2d 315 (2005) (Relinquish C.J., concurring) (arguing that Williamson County’s state-court litigation rule should be reconsidered).

Our holding today, however, relies only on Williamson County’s primary observation that utilization of a remedial scheme for recovery of property logically precedes a takings claim. As the Court acknowledged, this is a proposition implicit in the Takings Clause and well-supported by precedent.

. The Supreme Court later explained that the existence of a statutory remedy in Crazier made the government’s taking of property in that case constitutionally unobjectionable. See William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Bldg. Co. v. Int'l Curtis Marine Turbine Co., 246 U.S. 28, 44-45, 38 S.Ct. 271, 62 L.Ed. 560 (1918) (”[T]he provisions of the statute affording a right of action and compensation were adequate to justify the exercise” of the government's power.).

. See also Ruckelshaus, 467 U.S. at 1013 n. 16, 104 S.Ct. 2862 (holding that a statutory procedure that provides just compensation '’nullifies] any claim against the Government for a taking"). In Ruckelshaus, Monsanto claimed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had taken without just compensation certain trade secrets that it was required to submit during the approval process for insecticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Id. at 998, 104 S.Ct. 2862. The alleged taking occurred when the EPA used some of Monsanto’s trade secrets in assessing the permit applications of other companies' insecticides. Id. However, under FIFRA, Monsanto was entitled to compensation from the companies to whose benefit its trade secrets were applied, which it could seek through a statutory arbitration process. Id. at 995, 104 S.Ct. 2862. The Court held that Monsanto’s takings claims were unripe because it had not yet arbitrated its claims, noting that ”[i]f a negotiation or arbitration pursuant to [FI-FRA] were to yield just compensation ..., then Monsanto would have no claim against the Government for a taking.” Id. at 1013., 104 S.Ct. 2862

. Even if it failed to participate in the chapter 47 proceedings, VSC might have had, in certain cases, a second post-deprivation option available to it. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. arts. 18.17(e), 47.07.

. VSC, having notice of the vehicles’ seizure, should have initiated chapter 47 proceedings, both to notify the government that it was asserting an interest in the vehicles and to determine its interest in them. VSC failed to do so. After West Covina, federal courts have held that where a claimant fails to take advantage of a State’s post-deprivation procedures, that claimant cannot then complain of the State’s subsequent disposition of the property. See, e.g., Revell v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & ' N.J., 598 F.3d 128, 139 (3rd Cir.2010) (affirming summary judgment against the claimant because "he did not take advantage of state procedures available to him for the return of his property”); Mora v. City of Gaithersburg, 519 F.3d 216, 230 (4th Cir.2008) ("Mora has had, and continues to have, notice and an opportunity to be heard in Maryland, and he cannot plausibly claim that Maryland’s procedures are unfair when he has not tried to avail himself of them.”); McKinney v. Chidley, 87 Fed.Appx. 615, 617 (9th Cir.2003) (memo, op.) (affirming summary judgment against claimant because he admitted that he did not follow State procedures for recovering property).

We also note that the dissent’s position on notice could severely hamper law enforcement. We assume for the purposes of this case that VSC does in fact have a property interest in its alleged liens on the seized vehicles, although the State strenuously disputes this proposition. But in a case like this, where the precise contours of property rights are unclear, it is difficult to charge the government with the duty of notice. The dissent’s rule would subject political subdivisions to takings liability in cases in which they did not even know property rights existed. Because VSC’s actual notice was sufficient here, however, we need not reach this issue.

.VSC sought declarations that (1) it was entitled to fees for stolen vehicles, (2) the City lacked authority to seize allegedly stolen vehicles from VSC, and (3) VSC was entitled to notice and a hearing under chapter 47.

. We have conflicts jurisdiction over this case based on section 22.225(c) of the Government Code as it existed at the time this action was filed, which grants us jurisdiction where the court of appeals' decision would overrule a decision of this Court if both had been decided by the same court. Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. White, 46 S.W.3d 864, 867 (Tex.2001); see also Act of June 2, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 204, § 1.02, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 847, 848 (codified at Tex. Gov't Code § 22.225).

Justice WAINWRIGHT,

joined by Justice JOHNSON and Justice GUZMAN, dissenting.

A peace officer may take possession without a warrant of property in the hands of innocent third parties if he or she has probable cause to believe it may have been stolen. See Tex. Transp. Code § 501.158(a) (“A peace officer may seize a vehicle or part of a vehicle without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the vehicle or part: (1) is stolen; or (2) has had the serial number removed, altered, or obliterated.”). The government holds such property, at times at private storage facilities, until its usefulness, if any, as evidence in a judicial proceeding is over and the actual owner is determined. Under such circumstances, we expect our government to preserve and protect individuals’ property and dispose of it only when allowed by law and with notice to the property’s owners. In this case, a third party with a protectable interest in property that was seized sought, among other things, injunctive relief in state district court to prohibit the government from disposing of that interest and declaratory relief seeking recognition of its rights in the property. During the pen-dency of the lawsuit, the government not only physically removed more of the property, but also disposed of the property subject to the original suit without notice or compensation to the third party. The third party had a storage lien on confiscated vehicles to secure its right to be paid for the storage services it provided.

The Court holds that because the third party failed to pursue remedies through a vague, incomplete, and likely constitutionally infirm statutory procedure, its recovery is precluded in the original suit filed in district court requesting the same relief the Court says it must seek as a prerequisite to a takings claim. The Court, on an issue not raised by the parties, dismisses VSC’s claims for its failure to specifically plead a claim (1) usually initiated in municipal court that is not a required prerequisite, (2) that the City argued at the trial court and the court of appeals was unavailable for VSC to seek during the pendency of a lawsuit, covering the same conduct, and (3) where VSC sought equivalent relief through injunctions and declaratory judgment actions. I would hold that VSC sought the relief under Chapter 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Court holds is a prerequisite to an inverse condemnation claim. VSC satisfied that prerequisite with its pleadings. And on the merits, I would hold that there are fact questions as to whether and how the City disposed of the vehicles at issue and affirm the trial court’s denial of the plea to the jurisdiction. I therefore respectfully dissent.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The Court’s brief recitation of the facts omits important information regarding the substance and timing of VSC’s claims and the government’s actions regarding VSC’s property. In 2002, VSC operated a Vehicle Storage Facility licensed in accordance with the Vehicle Storage Facility Act (VSFA), which authorized VSC to receive and store vehicles towed to its lot without the owners’ consent. Tex. OCC.Code §§ 2803.001-.305. In 2002 the Dallas Police Department (DPD), directed by the City of Dallas (City), entered VSC’s property and took possession of fifty vehicles from VSC’s storage lot. VSC stored the vehicles towed there. Four days after the first fifty vehicles were seized, VSC sought a temporary restraining order in state district court against the City, presumably to prevent seizures of any more vehicles. Eventually, the City filed proceedings under Chapter 47 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to determine possession of the allegedly stolen vehicles. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 47.01-12. VSC participated in a hearing before a municipal court judge pursuant to article 47.01a. See id. art. 47.01a. The municipal court awarded eighteen of the vehicles to their owners. Fourteen of those eighteen awards were contingent upon the owners paying VSC the storage fees due. The municipal court awarded the remaining thirty-two vehicles to VSC.

Even though its district court action remained pending, VSC contends that the City seized a total of 276 additional vehicles, and that the City stored some of the seized vehicles, released some to their owners, and sold the rest, but failed to pay VSC any storage fees collected from those sales. The City admitted that it seized 326 vehicles from VSC’s lot. The City does not indicate whether it used Chapter 47 hearings to dispose of these additional vehicles, and the record does not provide the answer. VSC asserts that the City did not notify it of any hearings on the remaining 276 vehicles and did not advise VSC of how it had disposed of any of the vehicles. Moreover, the City allegedly did not inform the municipal court that VSC was an interested party or had asserted a right to possession, as required by statute. See id. art. 47.03 (“The officer shall notify the court of the names and addresses of each party known to the officer who has a claim to possession of the seized property.”). The City does not challenge these assertions, and they are taken as true for purposes of this appeal of the plea to the jurisdiction.

VSC contends that it notified the City that it had a property interest in the vehicles and requested notice of any hearings. It further claims it had “a legitimate and recognized property interest” in the seized vehicles that the City destroyed by disposing of the vehicles without notice to VSC. The City does not dispute that it did not pay VSC any storage fees on the vehicles. At the trial court and court of appeals, the City asserted that because VSC was not the owner of the vehicles, it was not entitled to notice of Chapter 47 hearings.

VSC’s suit against the City in state court was amended multiple times, eventually alleging various state and federal causes of action. In its Fourth Amended Petition, filed just before the case was removed to federal court, VSC alleged, among other things, that it was an “interested person” for purposes of Chapter 47, that it had a possessory property interest in the seized vehicles, and that the City’s actions constituted a taking under state and federal law. It sought injunctive relief, damages, and declaratory relief. VSC pled that the trial court “should specifically make a determination as to the rightful possession of the seized vehicles still in Defendants’ possession and Plaintiffs property interest in these vehicles as well as vehicles recovered by Plaintiff in the future....”

Later, in VSC’s Sixth Amended Petition, the live petition for this appeal, VSC alleged that the City had disposed of the remaining 276 vehicles. Nonetheless, it still sought, contrary to the Court’s suggestion, relief under Chapter 47. VSC alleged that the City “intentionally entered onto Plaintiffs property and seized vehicles to which Plaintiff had a superior right to possess and in which Plaintiff had a recognized property interest,” that it was entitled to notice under Chapter 47, that the Court should declare its superior rights in the vehicles and that the City lacks authority to seize and dispose of the vehicles, and that it was entitled to damages for the City’s alleged taking of its interest in the vehicles.

Two claims are the subject of this appeal. One alleges that the City’s seizure and subsequent disposition of the vehicles without notice to VSC was a taking of VSC’s property interest in the vehicles for public use and violated VSC’s right to just compensation under the Texas and United States Constitutions. Tex. Const, art. I, § 17; U.S. CONST, amends. V, XIV § 1. The second cause of action sought a declaratory judgment against the City related to its towing policies and its entitlement to storage fees.

The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting VSC could not state a valid takings claim and that VSC alleged no other basis to waive the City’s governmental immunity. The City did not allege at the trial court that VSC’s claims were unripe or otherwise not justiciable because VSC failed to request a hearing under Chapter 47. The trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction, and the City brought an interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 51.014(a)(8) (permitting interlocutory appeals from a court order that grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court ruling as to the “public use” state and federal takings claims and affirmed the denial of the plea as to VSC’s declaratory judgment action. 242 S.W.Sd 584, 599 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, pet. granted). The City appealed, and we granted review.

The City argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction because VSC does not have a valid property interest in the seized vehicles to assert a state takings claim. It argues that even if there is a property interest, the seizures themselves were not compensable takings. Although the parties discussed the applicability of Chapter 47 at oral argument, in its briefing to this Court the City did not argue that Chapter 47 was a prerequisite to suit or that its plea to the jurisdiction should be granted for VSC’s failure to exhaust any presuit procedure. However, today the Court avoids the issues raised by the parties and instead holds that the plea to the jurisdiction should be granted, not because VSC cannot state a takings claim, but because its takings claim is precluded by VSC’s failure to seek relief under Chapter 47. A close examination of Chapter 47 will help to understand the extent of the Court’s error.

II. Chapter 47

A. Structure and Use of Chapter 47

Various statutes provide that a peace officer may seize property that has been, or appears to be, stolen. E.g., Tex. TRANSp. Code § 501.158(a). Chapter 47 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides a mechanism for return of that property. When an officer seizes property,

he shall immediately file a schedule of the same ... with the court having jurisdiction of the case, certifying that the property has been seized by him, and the reason therefor ... [and] shall notify the court of the names and the addresses of each party known to the officer who has a claim to possession of the seized property.

tex.Code Crim. Proo. art. 47.03. If the ownership of the property is disputed, the officer “shall hold it subject to the order of the proper court.” Id. art. 47.01(a). If no criminal trial is pending, an appropriate judge, which may include a district judge, county court judge, statutory county court judge, magistrate, or justice of the peace “may hold a hearing to determine the right to possession of the property, upon the petition of an interested person, a county, a city, or the state.” Id. art. 47.01a(a). Following the hearing, the judge may award the property “to whoever has the superior right to possession,” or to the state, pending resolution of the criminal case. Id. “If it is shown in a hearing that probable cause exists to believe that the property was acquired by theft or by another manner that makes its acquisition an offense and that the identity of the actual owner of the property cannot be determined,” the court may award possession to the state for official purposes, for disposition as unclaimed property, or for destruction. Id. art. 47.01a(b).

Chapter 47 is different from civil forfeiture, which applies to seized property that was used in the commission of a crime. See Tex.Code Crim. Proo. arts. 59.01-.14. While Chapter 47 gives a small framework for the quick disposition of property “alleged to have been stolen,” it leaves important gaps in its procedure. Id. art 47.01. For example, the chapter does not refer to a party filing a “petition” or initiating a “civil action,” but only that an interested party may request a “hearing.” It does not require notice to interested parties, as the civil forfeiture statute does. Cf. id. art. 59.04(b) (requiring that, to institute civil forfeiture proceedings, the state’s attorney “shall cause certified copies of the notice to be served on [relevant] persons in the same manner as provided for the service of process by citation in civil cases”). Chapter 47 is schizophrenic in what the judicial officer may determine, whether it is the person who “has the superior right to possession,” id. art. 47.01a(a)(l), or who is the “actual owner” of the property, see id. arts. 47.01(a), .02(b), .04. Compare Universal Underwriters Grp. v. State, 283 S.W.3d 897, 900 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (“[U]nder article 47.01a, the trial court determines ‘superior right to possession,’ rather than ownership.”), and Perry v. Breland, 16 S.W.3d 182, 189 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2000, pet. denied) (“The justice court had no jurisdiction ... to determine ownership [of the property at issue] .... ”), with, Allstate Ins. Co. v. Troy’s Foreign Auto PaHs, No. 05-00-01239-CV, 2001 WL 840613, at *3 (Tex.App.-Dallas July 26, 2001, pet. denied) (“[Chapter 47] provides the court with the power to direct the property be restored to the owner. In addition, the right to possession without legal ownership would render the possession useless.... The municipal court has jurisdiction to award both possession and title .... ” (citations omitted)). And it certainly does not include any expression that Chapter 47 is the exclusive method of determining ownership, or a right to possession. “Nothing in the statute suggests that Chapter 47 provides the exclusive forum for establishing ownership.” Tipton Int’l, Inc. v. Davenport, No. 10-02-00242-CV, 2004 WL 1474663, at *3 (Tex.App.-Waco June 30, 2004, no pet.).

Because of the lack of specificity and comprehensive scheme, the only way to view Chapter 47 is as a process rather than a proceeding, applicable to a number of different judicial forums. Chapter 47 provides that a district, county court, statutory county court judge, or a justice of the peace or municipal judge with magistrate jurisdiction may “hold a hearing” to determine disposal of allegedly stolen property. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 47.01 a(a)(l). It is not surprising that our courts of appeals have dealt with Chapter 47 claims not only brought as stand-alone claims, but also as independent tort claims and counterclaims brought by the state in tort and constitutional civil rights actions against it. See York v. State, 298 S.W.3d 735, 741 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009, pet. filed) (alleging takings violation through improper disposal of trailer under Chapter 47); Universal Underwriters, 283 S.W.3d at 899 (noting that the state filed a “Petition for Disposition of Stolen Property” under Chapter 47); Allstate Ins. Co., 2001 WL 840613, at *1 (“Seeking possession of [the property] under article 47.01a [the parties] attended a hearing....”); City of Pasadena v. De Los Santos, No. 01-98-00104-CV, 1999 WL 339335, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] May 27,1999, pet. denied) (dismissing appeal from a trial court order holding that the city was entitled to possession of property in action wherein citizens sued city for civil rights violations for wrongful seizure and tort claims, and the city counterclaimed for possession of the property under article 47.01(a)). No wonder that the City did not claim that a separate action under Chapter 47 was a prerequisite to suit. And no wonder that VSC argued, and the City disputed, that it was entitled to a declaration from the trial court that VSC is an entity with a “claim to possession of the seized property” and entitled to notice under article 47.03. 242 S.W.3d at 599 (noting, and not reaching, the City’s contention that VSC is not entitled to notice under Chapter 47).

B. The Court’s Chapter 47 Prerequisite

But despite this, the Court contends that VSC loses its case here because it did not take advantage of the “statutory remedy” of Chapter 47. There is a ripeness requirement for federal takings claims based pn state action. In general, for a federal takings claim to be ripe, the owner of the allegedly taken property must (1) obtain a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue from the government entity charged with implementing the regulations, and (2) utilize state procedures for obtaining just compensation. Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 186, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). There is some authority to suggest that the Williamson County requirements apply to physical takings as well as the more common regulatory taking scenarios. See Severance v. Patterson, 566 F.3d 490, 496-97 (5th Cir.2009). But Williamson County and its progeny do not apply in this situation.

The Court’s only substantial authority for its proposition that Chapter 47 pre-eludes a takings claim is one distinguishable case. In Hays v. Port of Seattle, a contractor entered in to a “cost plus” contract with the Commissioner of Public Lands of the State of Washington to excavate waterways, secured by a lien upon the shorelands. 251 U.S. 233, 234, 40 S.Ct. 125, 64 L.Ed. 243 (1920). After the contractor began work, the Commissioner wanted to change plans, and when neither party provided new plans, the work stalled. Id. at 235, 40 S.Ct. 125. Seventeen years later, the Washington state legislature enacted statutes establishing the Port of Seattle and vested title to a port authority, which took over the waterway and performed its own excavation. Id. at 236, 40 S.Ct. 125. Hays brought a bill in equity, seeking to enjoin the legislature’s act, as he alleged that it impaired his contract and took property without due process. Id. at 237-38, 40 S.Ct. 125. On the contract claim, the Supreme Court essentially held that he had abandoned the contract. Id. at 237, 40 S.Ct. 125. On the deprivation of property without due process claim, the Court held that Hays was barred from relief by laches. Id. at 238-39, 40 S.Ct. 125. It noted that, if he had not delayed, he could have filed a claim under what was a similar tort claim/state inverse condemnation proceeding under the then-active statute. Id. at 238, 40 S.Ct. 125. The Court held that such a procedure “satisfies the requirement of due process of law as clearly as if the ascertainment of compensation had preceded the taking.” Id. The case is simply an early example of the Williamson County rule.

I see no legally determinative distinction in this context between protecting one’s property rights by requesting a hearing before a municipal judge under Chapter 47 and promptly filing an injunction action in district court after the original seizures. Surely such a lawsuit, when there is nothing in Chapter 47 that makes it the exclusive remedy or establishes it as a prerequisite to a takings claim, is sufficient under Williamson County. This is not an inverse condemnation regulatory taking claim, where an administrative agency must determine the scope of the regulation as a prerequisite to suit. Nor is this a lawsuit commanded by the Legislature to be an “exclusive” remedy for a particular wrong. Chapter 47 comprehends a lawsuit, in one form or another.

The Court’s holding creates a new rule preferring one type of civil claim over another, when no governing statute or case law has heretofore required it. It suggests that “[cjlaims under chapter 47 may be brought in the same suit as other claims,” 347 S.W.3d 231 n. 7, but provides no analysis why its rule that precludes the civil claims brought by VSC permits claims specifically under Chapter 47.

C. VSC’s Pleadings and Chapter 47

Even assuming that the Court is correct in its assertion that Chapter 47 is somehow a prerequisite to other types of tort actions (which no party argues, no courts have held, and which the court of appeals precedent cited above demonstrates is simply not how the procedure works), I would hold that VSC sufficiently asserted its rights. The Court claims that “VSC, having notice of the vehicles’ seizure, should have initiated chapter 47 proceedings, both to notify the government that it was asserting an interest in the vehicles and to determine its interest in them. VSC failed to do so.” 347 S.W.3d 231 n. 17. The Court simply ignores VSC’s lawsuit and pleadings in reaching this unsupported conclusion.

First, VSC sought a temporary restraining order. It later sought injunctive relief against the City, requesting, among other things, prohibitions against the City from “[ojrdering the release of any vehicle (in Plaintiffs possession) for a reduced fee or charge” and from “releasing vehicles seized from Plaintiff that Plaintiff is authorized by law to possess and in which Plaintiff has a recognized property interest without requesting a hearing under Chapter 47 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and including Plaintiff as an interested party and notifying Plaintiff of the hearing.” It sought declaratory relief, including a declaration that VSC “is the rightful possessor of seized vehicles currently in possession of’ the City, and that VSC “has a property interest in the seized vehicles and is an interested person entitled to a Chapter 47 property hearing on vehicles seized” by the City. VSC requested relief in the nature of Chapter 47 (even though, as discussed above, it shouldn’t have to) by specifically requesting the court “make a determination as to the rightful possession of the seized vehicles still in Defendants’ possession and Plaintiffs property interest in these vehicles. ...” I see no significant difference between such a request for relief and a request to “hold a hearing to determine the right to possession of the property, upon the petition of an interested person.” Tex.Code CRiM. Proc. art. 47.01a(a). At a minimum, VSC “notified] the government that it was asserting an interest in the vehicles” and requested a “determin[ation of] its interest in them.” 347 S.W.3d 231 n. 17. Particularly because VSC most likely did not believe that it could bring a claim under Chapter 47, and particularly because the City argued — up until oral argument before this Court — that VSC was not entitled even to notice of a Chapter 47 hearing — it is difficult to imagine what the Court would have had VSC do. Under our rules of notice pleading, VSC satisfied the prerequisites the Court musters. It does not deserve to have its claims dismissed.

Of course, a claimant may not simply sit on his rights for an unreasonable time period, knowing that the government has seized his property, and then claim that the government has taken his property when it has been sold. A claimant has some duty to investigate the status of his property and take reasonable steps to secure it from the government or receive just compensation for the taking. See, e.g., Hallco Tex., Inc. v. McMullen Cnty., 221 S.W.3d 50, 74 & n. 38 (Tex.2006) (Hecht, J., dissenting) (discussing Texas cases applying limitations periods or laches to regulatory takings claims); see also, e.g., Waddy v. City of Houston, 834 S.W.2d 97, 102 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (recognizing that an action for inverse condemnation of property is barred after the ten-year period necessary to acquire land by adverse possession, but an inverse condemnation action for damage to property is governed by the two-year statute of limitations).

VSC was not dilatory in protecting its rights. VSC promptly sought an injunction against the City. Thereafter, VSC participated in several Chapter 47 proceedings disposing of seized vehicles prior to seizure of the vehicles at issue in this proceeding. VSC was notified of the proceedings, and in most cases the municipal court either returned the vehicles to VSC or to the owners subject to the payment of fees owed to VSC. These proceedings protected VSC’s property rights and ensured that VSC’s liens were not improperly destroyed. Although VSC did not know it and the City disputed it, VSC could have included an explicit request for the trial court to hold a hearing pursuant to Chapter 47, but did not do so. On the other hand, the City could have filed a counterclaim in district court seeking possession and disposition of the vehicles, but it evidently did not do so. See De Los Santos, 1999 WL 339335, at *1. Instead, according to VSC, the City unilaterally determined that VSC did not have an interest in the vehicles entitling VSC to notice of any Chapter 47 proceedings and, notwithstanding the pendency of a lawsuit over the same vehicles, disposed of the vehicles by either returning them to their owners or selling them and keeping the proceeds. It is difficult to understand why the Court requires a party to file a separate civil action, or to use “magic words” in its petition invoking a malleable and incomplete procedure to enforce rights covered by a civil action as a prerequisite to filing the already-pending litigation.

D. Due Process

The Court states that “VSC suggests ... that chapter 47 is constitutionally infirm because it does not require that the City notify claimed owners of these proceedings. Disputes about proper notice invoke procedural due process, not the Takings Clause.” 347 S.W.3d 231. VSC is not claiming a violation of due process, and the City has not argued that Chapter 47 is a prerequisite to a takings claim. It is the Court’s invocation of a prerequisite to Chapter 47 that does that. Rather, in its active petition, VSC’s complaint was about its money — it alleged that the City intentionally seized property for a public purpose in which VSC had a property interest and suffered damages. A claim for deprivation of due process cannot be the basis for a takings claim.

However, for the reasons articulated above, if Chapter 47 were required as a prerequisite to suit, I disagree that Chapter 47 “complies with both the Texas and United States Constitutions” to protect VSC’s property interests. Although any interested party may request a hearing under Chapter 47, the existence of the Chapter 47 proceeding itself would not immunize a governmental entity from takings liability. The proceeding may result in returning the vehicle to VSC (and thus potentially mooting VSC’s takings claim), and the municipal court may return a vehicle to an owner subject to the owner paying VSC’s fees (also potentially mooting VSC’s takings claim). Yet, no provision of Chapter 47 specifically deals with ownership of the vehicle or of the lien that is created when VSC properly takes possession of a vehicle and provides notice as required by the Property Code. Likewise, while article 47.03 requires that an officer provide notice to the relevant court “of the names and addresses of each party known to the officer who has a claim to possession of the seized property,” nothing in Chapter 47 requires that the court or anyone else provide notice to the vehicle’s owner or any other person with an actual interest in the seized vehicle and/or of the hearing. This facial infirmity in the statute has been recognized and addressed informally by municipal court judges who indicate in their Bench Book for Chapter 47 hearings that such notice should be given. Texas Municipal Courts Education Center, 2008 BENCH BOOK 45 (2008); cf. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 47.03. As discussed above, I believe that disposing of property without notice to the property owner would raise serious due process concerns. But those concerns arise only if a Chapter 47 hearing is a prerequisite to a takings suit.

The Court also states that once an owner or interested party’s property has been legitimately seized by the government, the government need not give notice even years later that it is about to permanently dispose of the property. 347 S.W.3d 231. There are two responses to this position. First, it makes no sense. Even though criminal proceedings in which such property may be germane may take months or years, the Court indicates that the state might simply dispose of potentially valuable property after its usefulness for criminal prosecutions wanes or it has been determined not to have been stolen, without giving the owners or interest holders an opportunity to intervene. The property owners do not know when the confiscated property is no longer needed. After legitimately seizing private property, the government should give notice to the owners and interest holders before disposing of the property. Even in forfeiture cases, if “the government intends to make permanent the deprivation of property seized at the time of an arrest, whether through forfeiture or destruction of that property, adequate notice is required.” United States v. Cardonar-Sandoval, 518 F.3d 13, 16 (1st Cir.2008); see Matthias v. Bingley, 906 F.2d 1047, 1052-53 (5th Cir.1990). Second, VSC did file an injunction action in state district court to protect its interests in the property and asserted that the district court should determine ownership and possession of the vehicles. But the Court’s holding makes that action useless.

The Court errs when it holds that a Chapter 47 proceeding is the only state adjudication that may serve as a prerequisite to a takings claim. It compounds its error by holding that VSC did not live up to its newly created standard in its pleadings in district court. I would hold that no such prerequisite exists, either in our case law on takings or in Chapter 47 itself, and I would not dismiss VSC’s claims on that basis.

III. VSC’s State Takings Claim

Because I would not hold that VSC’s failure to seek possession of the vehicles specifically under Chapter 47 precludes its takings claim, I now proceed to analyze the merits of the dispute. The City asserts the trial court erred in denying its plea to the jurisdiction to VSC’s takings claim. The City does not have immunity from a valid takings claim. See Gen. Sews. Comrn’n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d 591, 598 (Tex.2001). However, if the plaintiff fails to allege a valid takings claim, the City retains its immunity from suit. See id. (affirming a grant of a governmental entity’s plea to the jurisdiction where the plaintiffs constitutional takings claim failed). Whether particular facts constitute a taking is a question of law. Id. (citation omitted).

Article one, section seventeen of the Texas Constitution provides: “No person’s property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person.... ” Tex. Const, art. I, § 17. A takings claim consists of three elements: (1) an intentional act by the government under its lawful authority, (2) resulting in a taking of the plaintiffs property, (3) for public use. See Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d at 598; see also State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 643 (Tex.2007); City of Dallas v. Jennings, 142 S.W.3d 310, 313 (Tex.2004).

The City challenges VSC’s takings claims on four grounds: (1) VSC could not have a property interest in stolen vehicles; (2) the City did not seize VSC’s liens or debts, only the vehicles; (3) the seizure was not for “public use”; and (4) the seizure occurred under the proper and reasonable exercise of the City’s “police power” or some other exception to a takings claim.

A. VSC’s Property Interest

I would hold, as the Court “assume[s],” 347 S.W.3d 231 n. 10, that VSC had a cognizable property interest in the vehicles through the “garageman’s lien” in the Property Code. “A garageman with whom a motor vehicle ... is left for care has a lien ... for the amount of the charges for the care, including reasonable charges for towing ... to the garageman’s place of business and excluding charges for repairs.” Tex. Prop.Code § 70.003(c). The Property Code does not define “garage-man” or identify exactly what “care” is required for the hen to attach. The dictionary defines “care” as “protection; charge; temporary keeping as for the benefit of or until claimed by the owner.” Random House UnabRidged Dictionary (1987). Vehicle Storage Facilities must provide protection and keep vehicles for the benefit or until claimed by the owner. They must also provide reasonable storage efforts to protect vehicles, “such as locking doors, rolling up windows, and closing doors, hatchbacks, sunroofs, trunks, hoods, or convertible tops” and putting tarps over vehicles whose interiors are open to the elements. 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 85.719(a), (b). Thus, under the plain language of the Property Code, a vehicle storage facility that follows the requirements of the statute would qualify as a “garageman.”

The City argues that the VSFA precludes VSC’s claim to garageman’s lien rights because only the VSFA determines the rights and interests of a “Vehicle Storage Facility.” Although that act regulates the operation of “Vehicle Storage Facilities” which, among other things, store at least ten vehicles each year without the owners’ consent, Tex. Occ.Code §§ 2303.001-.003, .151 — .161, no language in the VSFA excludes Vehicle Storage Facilities from the benefits of the garageman’s lien. Further, the VSFA allows a vehicle storage facility to withhold a vehicle from its owner or operator “if the owner or operator of the vehicle does not pay the charges associated with delivery or storage of the vehicle....” M § 2303.160(c). And the garageman’s lien statute specifically recognizes that a garageman may come into possession of a vehicle not only through the consent of the owner of the vehicle but also “under a state law or city ordinance.” Tex. PROp.Code § 70.004(a). The VSFA specifically permits Vehicle Storage Facilities to retain possession of vehicles if an owner refuses to pay the storage charges, and the garageman’s lien statute recogn