NO. 07-04-0007-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D NOVEMBER 3, 2005

______________________________ VIVIAN COON S, et al.,

Appellants
v. HOCKLEY C OUNTY APPRA ISAL DISTRICT, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 286 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F HOCKLEY CO UNTY; NO. 00-08-18109; HON. HAROLD PHELAN, PRESI DING

_______________________________ Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS an d CAMPBELL, JJ. Vivian Coons, Bank of Amer ica, as Trustee of the Vivian Coons Trust, Jack W alker,
as Executor

of the Estate of

Christin a J. Coons, dec eased, and as Trustee of the Michael Arthur Coo ns Revocab le Trust, the Michael A. Coons Trust un der the will of Christina J. Coons, the Terr

y Dean Coons Revocable Trust, the Terry Dean Coons Revocable Trust under the w ill of C hristina J . Coons, the R onda S. Caldwell Revo cable Trust, theRonda S. Caldwell Trust under the will of Christina J. Coons, the Mark C. Coons Trust 1, the Mark2

C. Coons Revocable Inter Vivos Trust, the Mark C. Coons Trust under the wil l of Christi na J. Coons , the G ima D. Coons Trus t 1, the Gima D. Coons Revocable Inter Vi vos Trust, and the Gima D. CoonsTrust under the will of Christina J . Coons (the C oons) appeal from a judgment denying them recovery against the Hockley County Appr aisal Distric

t (Hockley District). Though couched in dif ferent words, the issues raised by the Coons mirror those asserted by

Devon Ene rgyProduction C ompany, L.P. and P ennzEnergy Explorati on and Production, L.L. C. in o ur ca use n umb er 07 -04- 000 5-CV . Furt herm ore, the o pini on we issued today in th at case control s the outcome here. So we incorporate that opi nion into this one and rev

erse the judg ment of the trial court. The record disclose s that th e Coons sued Hoc kley Di strict to n ullify various appraisals of their royalty interests. Those interests were created via three oil and ga s leases, the M.G. Gor don Lea se , the W.A. Coons Lease, and the Coons Lease. Furthermore, each lease inv olved real ty cross ing the Hoc kley and Ter ry County lines. That is, of the surface acrea ge mentio ned in the Gordon lease, 83.3% lay i n Hockley County while the remainder w

as in Terry

County. R egarding the W.A. Coons lease, 85% of the surface acreage was in Hockley and the remainder in Terry. Finally, 82.5% of the surf ace in th e Coo ns Le ase wa s loca ted i n Hoc kley wit h the rema inde r in T erry. Next, evidence of record illustrated that the borders of the subsurf a ce mineral
reserves were not co-terminous with those of the surface. For instance, 50% of the mineral
reserves under the M.G. Gordon Lease were in Hockley County, w hile 71% under the W.A. Coons Lease were , and no percent of ther e serves unde r the Coons Leas e were. Moreover, in assessing the fairmarket value of the property subject to taxation by those taxing units in Ho ckley C ounty, Hock ley Dis trict rel ied not on the per centage of reser

ves3

within the county bu t rather upon th e number of surface acr es. In other

words, i t calculated the value of the enti re res erve captured within t he respective lease and multi plied that number by the percentage of surface acres within Hock ley County. This led to resul ts which Coons found unacceptab le. For instance, Hockley Distric t concluded that 85% of the value of the r

eserves und er the W.A. Coons Lease weresubject to tax ation by H ockley County enti ties even t hough none of the res erves were actually located in that

county. As previous ly mentioned, our opinion in ca use number 07-04- 0005-CV contr ols the outcomehere. Furthermore, beca use th e record at bar disclosed that Hockley District’s appraisals failed to comport with the auth ority and analysis discussed in that opin ion, we sustain the contention that the as sessments were erroneous. As to th e ma tter of a ttor ney’s fee s, we again refer the litig ants to our opi nion in 07- 04-0005-CV. The analysi s and authority discussed u nder point two of tha t document appli es at bar. And, based upon tha t analysis and those authorities, the trial court is obligated to reconsider t he issue. Accordingl y, we reverse the judgment and r emand the cause.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice