the pleadings liberally in their favor and look to their intent. See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226. In their petition, the Developers allege that, under the Agreements, the Authority is allowed to lease and use the Facilities at no charge until the Authority purchases the Facilities and that the Authority has not purchased the Facilities. Presuming without deciding that the Authority’s alleged breaches of the Agreements resulted in recoverable contract damages to the Developers, the facts alleged in the Developers’ petition affirmatively negate the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction by showing that the Developers agreed to allow the Authority to lease and use the Facilities free of charge until the Authority purchases the Facilities. See General Servs. Comm’n, 39 S.W.3d at 598-99 (<HOLDING>); State v. Steck Co., 236 S.W.2d 866, 869
holding that plaintiff did not properly plead an individualcapacity claim because she did not allege that defendant pucinski entered the incorrect information herself holding that even presuming that facts alleged in petition were true plaintiff did not allege a claim within the scope of the takings clause because it did not plead sufficient intent holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction holding that plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to allege affirmative misconduct on the part of the government holding that to rebut presumption plaintiff need only allege specific facts not plead evidence