AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed December 6, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-01048-CV

WILLIAM CHARLES BUNDREN, KAREN BUNDREN, AND WILLIAM MARK 

BUNDREN, Appellants

V.

COLLIN CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, COLLIN APPRAISAL REVIEW 

BOARD, ROBERT PHILO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ARB CHAIRMAN, AND BO

DAFFIN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF APPRAISER, Appellees

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-05054-2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Osborne, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Nowell

Appellants William Charles Bundren, Karen Bundren, and William Mark Bundren appeal 

the trial court’s order granting the pleas to the jurisdiction filed by appellees Collin Central 

Appraisal District (CCAD), Collin Appraisal Review Board (ARB), James Terilli,1 and Bo Daffin. 

In a single issue, appellants assert the trial court erred by granting appellees’ pleas to the 

jurisdiction and dismissing appellants’ lawsuit. We affirm the trial court’s order of dismissal for 

want of jurisdiction. 

 

1

James Terilli was Chairman of the ARB when the events leading up to this lawsuit occurred. He since has been replaced by Robert Philo.
–2–

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Appellants reside on the property that is the subject matter of the lawsuit. Charles2 and 

Karen filed for and received a General Residential Homestead Exemption for the property in 

January 2004. In March 2013, Charles and Karen conveyed a life estate to Charles’s father, Mark, 

who was over 65-years old. On December 27, 2016, Mark executed a 2016 Residence Homestead 

Exemption Application in which he represented each appellant had a 100% ownership interest in 

the property; Mark also sought a General Residence Homestead Exemption and an Age 65 or Older 

Exemption based on his age. Two days later, Charles and Karen filed a 2016 Residence Homestead 

Exemption Application for the same property. 

In May 2017, CCAD notified appellants of the appraised value of the property, and that it 

was denying the Over 65 Exemption. Charles, a lawyer representing Karen, Mark, and himself,

filed a Notice of Protest Letter. Charles requested all correspondence be sent to him at his office 

address: 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300, Frisco, Texas 75034. In June 2017, the ARB sent a 

Notice of Protest Hearing to Charles at the above-listed address. The letter stated the hearing 

would be held on June 23, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. The letter also stated: “FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR 

YOUR HEARING ON 6/23/2017 WILL RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF YOUR PROTEST and 

may jeopardize other rights to which you may otherwise be entitled.”

Also in June 2017, CCAD notified appellants that it was removing the General Residential 

Homestead Exemption for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017; Charles served a second Notice 

of Protest Letter and again requested that all communications be sent to his office address: 2591 

Dallas Parkway, Suite 300, Frisco, Texas 75034.3

 

2 Because appellants share a surname, we will refer to them by their first or middle names. 

3 Both Notice of Protest Letters state: “All communications concerning this property and this property owner regarding this protest should be 

sent to me at the above referenced address. DO NOT SEND ANY COMMUNICATIONS TO THE PROPERTY ADDRESS.”
–3–

Charles filed a motion to reschedule the hearing. In August 2017, the ARB sent a Notice 

of Protest Hearing to Charles at his office address, 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300, Frisco, Texas 

75034. The letter stated the hearing would be held on August 21, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. The notice 

letter again stated: “FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR YOUR HEARING ON 6/23/2017 WILL 

RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF YOUR PROTEST and may jeopardize other rights to which you 

may otherwise be entitled.” On August 21, 2017, none of the appellants appeared at the protest 

hearing. Appellants also did not file an affidavit or appear by telephone conference call to offer 

argument. See TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 41.45(b). 

ARB Chairman James Terilli subsequently signed a motion to dismiss appellants’ protest 

because appellants failed to appear at the hearing. Appellants took no further action before the 

ARB. Instead, appellants filed an original petition in the trial court. Appellees filed pleas to the 

jurisdiction asserting the trial court lacked jurisdiction over appellants’ claims. Appellants filed a 

response. After conducting a hearing, the trial court dismissed appellants’ claims for want of 

jurisdiction. 

LAW & ANALYSIS

In a single issue, appellants assert the trial court erred by granting appellees’ pleas to the 

jurisdiction and dismissing their lawsuit. A plea to the jurisdiction challenges the district court’s 

authority to determine a cause of action. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex.

2000). We review de novo the grant of a plea to the jurisdiction. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife 

v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004).

The Texas Tax Code provides detailed administrative procedures for those who would 

contest their property taxes. Cameron Appraisal Dist. v. Rourk, 194 S.W.3d 501, 502 (Tex. 2006) 

(citing TEX. TAX CODE ANN. §§ 41.01–.71). “The administrative procedures are ‘exclusive’ and 

most defenses are barred if not raised therein.” Id. (citing TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 42.09.2). The 
–4–

Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “a taxpayer’s failure to pursue an appraisal review 

board proceeding deprives the courts of jurisdiction to decide most matters relating to ad valorem 

taxes.” Id. (citing Matagorda County Appraisal Dist. v. Coastal Liquids Partners, L.P., 165 

S.W.3d 329, 331 (Tex. 2005); Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. v. Midland Cent. Appraisal Dist., 826 

S.W.2d 124, 125 (Tex. 1992) (per curiam); Webb County Appraisal Dist. v. New Laredo Hotel, 

Inc., 792 S.W.2d 952, 954–55 (Tex. 1990)).

In Webb County Appraisal District, the Texas Supreme Court considered the issue that is 

before this Court today: “whether a taxpayer is required to ‘appear’ at the protest hearing before 

the Appraisal Review Board as a prerequisite to an appeal to district court.” Webb County 

Appraisal Dist., 792 S.W.2d at 953. After considering relevant portions of the tax code, the 

supreme court decided the tax protest “merely initiates the process,” but there must be evidence 

upon which the board can determine the merits of the protest. Id. at 954. “If the taxpayer presents 

no evidence, the appraisal review board has nothing before it on which to make a determination, 

which is a prerequisite to judicial review.” Id. The effect of allowing a party to not present 

evidence at the hearing, either in person or by affidavit, “would be the emasculation of the 

administrative hearing process. Filing a protest would become merely one more hoop to jump 

through before appealing to district court.” Id. at 954. Further, “if the taxpayer is not required to 

appear at the protest hearing in order to appeal to district court, the administrative hearing process 

would become useless. We hold that taxpayers contesting property valuation must appear, either 

personally, by representative, or by affidavit, at the protest hearing as a prerequisite to an appeal 

to district court.” Id. at 954-55.

It is uncontested that appellants did not appear for the hearing on August 21, 2017. The 

reason they did not appear is contested. Appellants maintain they did not receive notice of the 

hearing. However, they did not raise this issue with the ARB. Rather, the record shows the ARB 
–5–

sent notice of the hearing to appellants at the requested address where appellants stated they would 

receive mail. This is the same address where the previous notice of hearing was sent; that notice 

was received by appellants. Appellants continue to use the same address as part of this litigation. 

By failing to appear at the hearing or otherwise present evidence to the ARB, appellants 

failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider 

their complaints related to ad valorem taxes. Therefore, we conclude the trial court properly 

granted appellees’ pleas to the jurisdiction and dismissed appellants’ lawsuit. We overrule 

appellants’ sole issue.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s order of dismissal for want of jurisdiction.

181048F.P05

/Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
–6–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

WILLIAM CHARLES BUNDREN, 

KAREN BUNDREN, AND WILLIAM 

MARK BUNDREN, Appellants

No. 05-18-01048-CV V.

COLLIN CENTRAL APPRAISAL 

DISTRICT, COLLIN APPRAISAL 

REVIEW BOARD, ROBERT PHILO, IN 

HIS CAPACITY AS ARB CHAIRMAN, 

AND BO DAFFIN, IN HIS CAPACITY 

AS CHIEF APPRAISER, Appellees

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-05054-2017.

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. 

Justices Myers and Osborne participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order of dismissal for 

want of jurisdiction is AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that appellees Collin Central Appraisal District, Collin Appraisal 

Review Board, Robert Philo, In His Capacity As ARB Chairman, and Bo Daffin, In His Capacity 

as Chief Appraiser, recover their costs of this appeal from appellants William Charles Bundren, 

Karen Bundren, and William Mark Bundren. 

Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2019.