Affirmed and Opinion Filed April 27, 2017 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00800-CV 

DISH NETWORK CORPORATION AND BLOCKBUSTER, LLC, A WHOLLY OWNED 

SUBSIDIARY OF DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, Appellants 

V. 

COLLIN CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 380-03370-2012 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Dish Network Corporation and Blockbuster, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dish 

Network Corporation (Dish) appeals the trial court’s traditional summary judgment in favor of 

Collin Central Appraisal District. In three issues, Dish argues the trial court erred in granting 

summary judgment because the evidence presented by the District was contradictory, 

conclusory, and non-existent. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

The summary judgment evidence shows that, in May 2011, Dish acquired Blockbuster. 

Dish filed a business personal property rendition of personal property, and the District appraised 

Dish’s inventory at $70,076,219. In July 2011, Dish filed a protest for “excessive appraisal, 

unequal appraisal and appraisal of intangibles.” Following a hearing in July 2011, the Collin 

County appraisal review board denied Dish’s protest. In September 2012, Dish sued the District, 
 –2– 

alleging the District did not provide Dish with notice of the $70,076,219 appraisal. Dish further 

alleged the appraisal was in excess of fair market value; was based on an appraisal method that 

was antiquated, unfair, and erroneous; was unequal compared to a sample of similar properties; 

and constituted an unlawful levy and created an illegal lien on the property. Dish alleged it had 

presented to the appraisal review board a claim that clerical errors affected Dish’s 2011 tax 

liability and had filed a motion to correct the appraisal roll and the value of the property pursuant 

to section 25.25(c) of the tax code. Dish claimed the appraisal erroneously included property 

that did not exist in the form or at the location described in the appraisal roll and property that 

Dish did not own on January 1 of 2011. 

In April 2015, the District filed a traditional motion for summary judgment in which it 

pointed out that Dish obtained a hearing before the appraisal review board in July 2011 but did 

not raise its 25.25(c) claims until March 2012. The District argued Dish’s claims of clerical error 

were untimely and improper and constituted an attempt to have a second assessment of Dish’s 

inventory for 2011. Further, the District argued that, under section 25.25(c), the appraisal roll 

may not be changed if the property was subject to a protest brought by the owner under Chapter 

41, a hearing on the protest was conducted in which the property owner offered evidence or 

argument, and the appraisal review board made a determination of the protest on the merits. The 

District cited section 25.25(c)’s provision that a “clerical error” does not include an error that is 

or results from a mistake in judgment or reasoning in the making of the finding or determination. 

On June 1, 2015, the trial court granted the District’s traditional motion for summary judgment, 

and this appeal followed. 

In three issues, Dish argues summary judgment was improper and the summary judgment 

evidence was (1) contradictory because it raised the issue of whether the District could have 

made a clerical error in assessing Dish’s nontaxable assets; (2) conclusory because the District’s 
 –3– 

proffered testimony merely stated that it made no errors in its calculations; and (3) lacking 

because no evidence was presented to show Dish’s protests were untimely or improper. More 

specifically, Dish argues its own rendition for 2011 showing $24,079,794 in taxable property 

contradicted the District’s assessment, thereby raising an issue of material fact whether the 

District could have committed a clerical error; the affidavit of District appraiser Brad Richards 

was conclusory because it merely stated the District arrived at the appraised value “through a 

process of deliberate determination, reasoning and appraisal” and did not result from a clerical 

error; and there were no work papers, schedules, or calculations provided to show how the 

District arrived at its appraised value. In making these arguments, Dish reiterates its argument 

that the appraisal erroneously included property that did not exist in the form or at the location 

described in the appraisal roll and property that Dish did not own on January 1 of 2011. 

The standard for reviewing a traditional summary judgment is well known. See Nixon v. 

Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548–49 (Tex. 1985); McAfee, Inc. v. Agilysys, Inc., 316 

S.W.3d 820, 825 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). The movants have the burden of showing 

that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c). In deciding whether a disputed material fact issue exists 

precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true. 

Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 549; In re Estate of Berry, 280 S.W.3d 478, 480 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, 

no pet.). Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the nonmovant and any doubts 

resolved in his favor. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 824 (Tex. 2005). We review a 

summary judgment de novo to determine whether a party’s right to prevail is established as a 

matter of law. Dickey v. Club Corp. of Am., 12 S.W.3d 172, 175 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, pet. 

denied). 
 –4– 

The property tax code provides that the appraisal review board, on motion of the chief 

appraiser or a property owner, may direct changes in the appraisal role for any of the five 

preceding years to correct: 

(1) clerical errors that affect a property owner’s liability for a tax imposed in that 

tax year; 

(2) multiple appraisals of a property in that tax year; 

(3) the inclusion of property that does not exist in the form or at the location 

described in the appraisal roll; or 

(4) an error in which property is shown as owned by a person who did not own 

the property on January 1 of that tax year. 

TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 25.25(c) (West 2015). 

 Under the tax code, a “clerical error” means an error: 

(A) that is or results from a mistake or failure in writing, copying, transcribing, 

entering or retrieving computer data, computing, or calculating; or 

(B) that prevents an appraisal roll or a tax roll from accurately reflecting a finding 

or determination made by the chief appraiser, the appraisal review board, or the 

assessor; however, “clerical error” does not include an error that is or results from 

a mistake in judgment or reasoning in the making of the finding or determination. 

Id. § 1.04(18) (West 2015). 

 We first address Dish’s argument that Richards’ affidavit in support of the District’s 

motion for summary judgment was “conclusory.” The record shows Richards’ affidavit did not 

merely state the District arrived at the appraised value “through a process of deliberate 

determination, reasoning and appraisal” and did not result from a clerical error. The affidavit 

further indicated the District disagreed with Dish’s “valuation ‘theory’ as it relates to 

intangibles” and the District’s appraisal of Dish’s property. Richards stated he “dispute[s] the 

value determination, judgment, and appraisal theory used by [Dish].” Thus, Richards’ affidavit 

established that the District’s valuation of Dish’s taxable property resulted from a disagreement 

with Dish’s claims that certain property was “intangibles” or nontaxable and a valuation in 
 –5– 

keeping with the District’s “appraisal judgment and techniques on valuing property.” “Clerical 

error” does not include an error that is or results from a mistake in judgment or reasoning in the 

making of the finding or determination. Id. Under these circumstances, we conclude Richards’ 

affidavit was not conclusory and established the District’s valuation did not result from a clerical 

error. We overrule Dish’s first issue. 

In arguing the District’s evidence was contradictory and created a fact issue whether the 

District committed a clerical error, Dish only relies upon section 1.04(18) subsection A’s 

definition of clerical error and argues the District made a “clerical error” in “calculating” its 

renditions as those terms are used in the definition of clerical error. Specifically, Dish argues its 

rendition for tax year 2011 included $24,079,794 in taxable property, $10,434 in “intangibles,” 

and $46,115,002 in nontaxable “disposed” property, amounting to a total of $70,205,230 in 

taxable and nontaxable property. Nevertheless, despite “the Rendition’s clear identification of 

what was taxable and nontaxable,” the District set the total taxable value at $70,076,219. Dish 

argues this amounted to a “clerical error” in that the District included nontaxable property in its 

taxable value calculation. The discrepancy between the rendition’s listing of $24,079,794 in 

taxable property and the District’s determination of $70,076,219 in taxable property, Dish 

argues, creates a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. 

Dish’s arguments attempt to revise the methodology the District used to calculate the 

renditions. See Dallas Central Appraisal Dist. v. S.W. Airlines Co., No. 05-10-00682-CV, 2012 

WL 210964, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.). The record 

establishes that the District disagreed with Dish’s “valuation ‘theory’” and applied its own 

appraisal theory to its determination of the value of Dish’s taxable property. Applying one 

methodology when another is either called for or would produce better results is simply not a 

clerical error as that term is contemplated by the tax code. Id. We overrule Dish’s second issue. 
 –6– 

To the extent Dish reiterates its argument that the District erroneously included certain 

property in its assessment, we note the property tax code does not explain what is meant by the 

phrase “inclusion of property that does not exist in the form or at the location described in the 

appraisal roll.” Titanium Metals Corp. v. Dallas Cty. Appraisal Dist., 3 S.W.3d 63, 66 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 1999, no pet.). Nevertheless, this Court has defined the term “form” in the context 

of 25.25(c)(3) to mean “its identification as a type of property listed under section 25.02(a), such 

as real property, personal property, an improvement to real property, or some other physical 

description of the property on the appraisal roll, other than its appraised value or its use.” Id.

(quoting Dallas Central Appraisal Dist. v. G.T.E. Directories Corp., 905 S.W.2d 318, 321 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 1995, writ denied). Thus, the relief available under section 25.25(c)(3) applies 

only when no property exists in the form or at the location described in the appraisal roll. Id. 

Stated differently, correction of the appraisal roll is only allowed when the appraisal roll 

erroneously reflects that a particular form of property exists at a specified location and, in fact, 

no such property exists at that location. Id. 

Here, the “form” of the property described in the appraisal roll is “business personal 

property.” Dish does not dispute that it maintains business personal property at the location 

described in the roll. Instead, Dish argues that it does not maintain as much business personal 

property at that location as the appraisal roll indicates. This is a complaint about the value of the 

property described in the appraisal roll, not a complaint about the existence or nonexistence of 

certain “forms” of property at the location described. Because we conclude business personal 

property did exist at the location in the appraisal roll, we conclude that amending the roll under 

section 25.25(c)(3) was not authorized. Titanium Metals, 3 S.W.3d at 66. Accordingly, 

summary judgment was proper in favor of the District on all of Dish’s claims. See Nixon, 690 

S.W.2d at 548–49. 
 –7– 

Finally, to the extent Dish argues summary judgment in favor of the District was 

improper on the grounds that Dish’s motion for correction of the appraisal roll under section 

25.25(c) was untimely, we conclude we need not address this issue. When multiple grounds for 

summary judgment are raised and the trial court does not specify the ground or grounds relied 

upon for its ruling, the appellate court will affirm the summary judgment if any of the grounds 

advanced in the motion are meritorious. Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 242 (Tex. 

2001). We have already addressed the merits of Dish’s challenges to the trial court’s summary 

judgment on Dish’s claims under section 25.25 and concluded summary judgment was proper on 

Dish’s claims. Thus, we need not address whether Dish was somehow precluded from raising its 

claims under section 25.25. See id. We overrule Dish’s third issue. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

150800F.P05 

 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –8– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DISH NETWORK CORPORATION AND 

BLOCKBUSTER, LLC, A WHOLLY 

OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF DISH 

NETWORK CORPORATION, Appellant 

No. 05-15-00800-CV V. 

COLLIN CENTRAL APPRAISAL 

DISTRICT, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 380-03370-2012. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Whitehill 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee COLLIN CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT recover its 

costs of this appeal from appellant DISH NETWORK CORPORATION AND 

BLOCKBUSTER, LLC, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF DISH NETWORK 

CORPORATION. 

Judgment entered April 27, 2017.