In Essenburg v. Dallas County, 988 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Tex. 1998), the Court explained that the purpose of the presentment requirement is to notify the commissioners court of a claim and afford it an opportunity to investigate and settle the claim. The Court distinguished the presentment statute from the exhaustion-of-remedies requirement applicable to administrative appeals, explaining that the exhaustion requirement seeks to assure that the appropriate body adjudicates a dispute - the hallmark of a jurisdictional statute. Id. The Court then held that Local Government Code 81.041, the predecessor to section 89.004, is not jurisdictional. Id. The Court held that the presentment statute is a nonjurisdictional notice statute. Id. at 189. The presentment statute is "intended to advise the commissioners' court of the claim and afford it an opportunity to investigate and adjust it without litigation." Id.; The Court of appeals further held that section 89.004(a) is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit. Id. at 151. Finally, the court of appeals held that limitations does not begin to run in suits against counties until presentment to and rejection by the commissioners court. Id. at 149. Therefore, the court of appeals concluded, limitations did not begin to run on Trammel's claim until July 17, 1993 (the date specified in Trammel's demand letter), when the claim was impliedly rejected by the County. Id.