In City of Balch Springs v. Lucas, 101 S.W.3d 116, 119 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2002, no pet.), the landowner raised issues regarding the impropriety of annexing under an exception to the general rule and as to the City of Balch Springs's refusal of the landowner's demand to arbitrate. Lucas, 101 S.W.3d at 116. In that case, the Court decided that the City's plea to the jurisdiction should have been granted by the trial court and the landowner's points were not meritorious. While it is true that the landowner in Lucas made claims similar to those raised here by the Estate, and we stated in Lucas that section 43.052 is procedural in nature making it subject to attack only by quo warranto, we concluded that the requirement to annex pursuant to a three-year plan under section 43.052(c) was not yet effective and binding on the City of Balch Springs. Id. at 122. Rather, a transitional provision was included in the 1999 legislation whereby a municipality was not required to wait for three-years to annex after a plan was created, but could proceed with annexations under the prior statutory procedure until three-years had transpired from the effective date of the amended statute. Id. Accordingly, the Court concluded the actions of the City of Balch Springs were not restricted as argued by Lucas.