### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 9 -00 424 -CV

Claudi a Rizzo and Sam uel Rizzo , Appellan ts

v. Gonzalo Ancir a , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COM AL COUNTY , 433RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C2008 -13 78D , HO NORAB LE DIB WALDRIP , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Claudia and Samuel Rizz o boug ht a 20-a cre piece of proper ty in Comal County

from Gonzalo A ncira
. After the Comal A ppraisal District assessed rollback taxes on the pr o p er t y , the Riz zos brought claims for violations of the Texas Dec eptive Tra de Prac tices Ac t (DTPA), statutory fr a ud un de r the bu sin e ss and c omm e rc e c od e , fr a ud by no n- dis c los ur e , ne g lig ence a nd gr os s neg lige nce, a

nd brea ch o f co n t ra ct ag ainst Ancira . After a benc h trial, the trial cour t entere d judgme nt in favor of

Ancira
. On appe al, the Rizz os challeng e the tria l court’s judg ment on the br e a c h- of -c on tr a c t c la im. We a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.B arb ara An c ir a so ld the pr op e rt y wi th he r t

he n- hu sb and , a

nd he r m arr ie d n a me a t th a t ti me 1 was Wagne r. At the time of trial, her marrie d name was Ruebenson, but she testi fi ed that profe ssionally

she g oes by

“B arba ra A ncira .” F or purp os e s of cl ari ty , only

a pp e lle e Go nza lo A nc ir a

wi ll b e re fe rr e d a s “ An c ir a ” in t his 2 op ini on . A nc ir a ’s da

ug hte rs , B arb ara

An c ir a and L isa An c ir a , will be re fe rr e d to by the ir fu ll n a me s. Th e fa c ts r e c ite d h e re in a re take n f ro m th e te sti mony

and e xhibi ts a dmi tte d at tr ia l. 3 2 BACK GR OUND I n 2001, Ba

rbar a Anc ira sold a 20-ac re p i ec e of prope rty in Comal Count y

to her 1 fathe r, Gonzalo Ancira
. At the time of the sale , the prope rty was desig nated as qualified ope n-spac e 2 land due to its ag ricultural use
. See Tex
. T ax C o de Ann. § 23.51( 1) (West Supp. 2009) (def ining “qualifie d open spac e land” as “la nd that is curr ently

devoted pr incipally

to ag ricultural use ”). The proper ty benef ited from tax exemptions that acc ompany such a spec ial-use va luation. See id. § 23.55 (West 2008) . Acc ording to Ba rbar a Anc ira, the pr operty maintained its special- use valuation “from the time Imet my

ex-husband back in 1997 a ll the w ay up to the prese nt.” She explained that the 20-ac re pr operty

had orig inally

been p ar t of a lar g er pr operty that she and he r ex-husband owne d,
and that c ow s h a d graz ed o n th e e nti re pr op e rt y be fo re the sa le of

the 20 a c re s to he r f

a the r i n 2001 and continued to do so afte r the sale of the prope rty . She also testified that she did not know of her fathe r eve r reapplying for a specia l-use valuation afte r t he sale, and that she c ontinued to pay the prope rty

taxes on the 20-acr e prope rty afte r the 2001 sale
. 3 Dora Campos, a g eog raphic al-infor mation-sy stem te chnician with the Comal Appra isal District, testified that a chang e in ow nership of proper ty g ener ally results in rea ssessment of the va lue of the pr operty , and the ne w owner must reapply for a specia l-use valuation of the proper ty . Howeve r, Campos testified that no re assessment of the prope rt y was done afte r theCampos also testified that her positio n a s g e o graphic al-infor

mation-sy stem technicia

n does 4 not involve appra ising land or evaluating spe cial-use valuations, and stated that she was “ not too familiar with the pr ocee dings of the ag [riculture] valuation.”

3 2001 sale of the 20-acre proper ty beca use the tra

nsfer was not prope rly

rec orded. A ccor dingly , the proper ty continued to be taxed as if it had a specia l-use v al u at i on even thoug h no new
a pp li cat io n wa s f

ile d b y An c ir a , th e ne w o wn e r. I ns te a d, the pr e vio us e xemp tio n r e ma ine d in Ba rbar a Anc ira’s na

me. I n July 20 07 , L isa An c ir a , an oth e r of Go nza lo An c ir a ’s da ug hte rs , we nt to spe a k to Campos at the Comal Appraisa l District of fice s. Ancira himself was a lso on the phone with Campos during part of the conversation. L isa Ancira told Campos that the 20-acr e prope rty was no long er being used for

ag ricultural pur

poses. Campos p as s ed this information along to a land appr aiser, though no notice s of re appra isal of the land we re se nt to the Ancira s at that time. Ba rbar a Anc ira, 4 howeve r, testified L isa Ancira had no per sonal knowledg e of the use of the la nd at the time of he r
conver sation with Campos, having not visited the prope rty since 2002. I n November

2007, Claudia and Samuel Rizz o boug ht the 20-ac re pr op er t y from Gonzalo Ancira
. Samuel Riz zo testi fied that the la nd’s open- space valuation, which he lear ned of from the r eal e state ag ent handling the property , was a primary selling point. Rizz o indicated that h e h ad n o re as o n t o b el i ev e th at t h e pr o p er t y d i d n o t re t ai n i t s o p en -s p ac e v al u at i o nt h ro u gh cl o s i n g, t h o u g h h e a l s o t e s t i f

i e d t h a t h e n e v e r s aw c a t t l e g r a z i n g o n t h e l an d d u r i n g h i s v i s i t s t o t h e p r o p e rt y. Riz zo also stated t hat, as far as he could t ell, all taxes had been paid as assessed at t he time of the closing in November

2007.A “r ollback tax” is a tax assessed following a chang e in use of land, a nd is calculated by 5 deter mining the differ ence betwee n the property taxes actua lly imposed on the l and for eac h of the pr e c e din g y e ars in q

ue sti on and the a mou

nt o f t a xes t

hat w ou ld h a ve be e n im po sed dur ingtho se y ear s if the land had be en t ax ed on its market value instea d of its ag ricultural va lue. Anderton v . R oc k wal l Ce nt. Ap

prais al D ist
. , 26 S.W .3d 539, 541 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, pe t. denied) ( citing Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 23.55 (West 2008)). 4

The con tr a c t of

sa le fo r t

he pr op e rt

y inc lud e d a

pr ov isi on

e nti tle d RO L L B AC K TAXES in p ara g ra

ph13 (B ), wh ic h r e a ds : 5
I f this sale or B uy er’ s u s e o f t h e P roperty afte r closing results in the assessment of additional taxes, penalties or intere st (Assessments) for periods prior to c losing, the As se ssm e nts wi ll b e the ob lig a tio n of B uy e r. I f S e lle r’ s c ha ng e in u se of

the Pr op e rt

y prior to closing or denial of a specia l use valuation on the Proper ty claimed by

Seller results in A s s es s ments for pe riods prior to closing , the Assessments will be the o b l i gat i o no f s el l er . Ob l i gat i o n s i mp o s edb y t h i s p ar agr ap h wi l l s u rv i v e c l o s i n g.
Camp o s t es t i fi edt h at , i nDe ce m b er 2 0 0 7 , t h e C o mal Appra isal District mailed notices of ap p ra i s al o f t he prope rty , with notices reg ardingthe y ear s 2002 to 2006 goingto Ancira , and a notice re g arding2007 g oing to the R izz os. The noti ces a ssessed the taxes on the prope rty based on marke t value, which a ccor ding to Campos indicated that the l and was no longe r consider ed to have maintained its special- use valuation for the y ear s 2002 to 2007. When asked whe ther the “ trig g ering event” for the sending of t he noti ces was t he report by L isa Ancira that the l and was no longe r being
us e d f or a g ri c ult ur a l pu rp os e s, Campo s r e pli ed, “N o, sir . T he tr ig g e ri ngme c ha nis m th e re wo uld have be e n th e tr ans fe r of the ow ne rs hip .” Campo s als o tes tif ie d tha t th e no tic e s o f a

pp ra isa l c ou ld have be en prote sted until J anuar y 17, 2008. The re cord does not indicate that any protests wer e filed. Samuel Riz zo testi fied that h e did not protest the 2007 notice of a ppraisal on the proper ty when he rec eived it beca

use he did not think i t applied to him. However , when Rizz o went to pay the taxes on the property in J anuar y 2008, Campos told him that he owe d more than $19,000We n ote that th e re is so me qu e sti on a s to wh e the r the Rizzos ’ b ri e fi ngpr op e rl y pla c e s th e ir 6 iss ue s bef or e thi s Co ur

t. U nd e r t

he ru le s o f a

pp e llate pr oc e dure , a

n a pp e lla nt’ s b ri e f “ mus t st a te concise ly all issues or points presente d for r eview” and “must conta in a clea r and concise argument for the c ontentions made, with appropr iate citations to authorities and to the r ecor d.” Te x . R. App. P. 39.1(f), (i). An issue is sufficiently prese nted for r eview only “if it direc ts the review ing c ourt’s attention to the err or about whic h the complaint was made .” See Canton-Carter v. Bay lor Coll ege of Med. , 271 S.W .3d 928, 931 (Tex
. Ap p . — Houston [14t h Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (c oncluding that arguments on appea l did not “direct[] the re viewing court’s attention to the err o r ab o u t whi ch the complaint is made” be cause issues on appea l “do not point out any err or allege dly committed by the tr ia l court ” ). He re , whi le the Rizzos state that the y “ c ha lle ng e the Tr ia l Cour t’ s rul ingthat th e sa le of the Proper

ty trig g ere d the assessment of the rollbac k taxes,” they do not indicate whe ther they ba se the ir c ha lle ng e on

pr inc ipl e s o f e vid e nti ary

su ff ic ie nc y or on so me le g a l e rr or

by the tr ia l c ourt , nor do they

prese nt any

standard f

or re viewing the trial cour t’s actions. See id. (noting lack of leg al analy sis and specific ation of st an d ar d of re view in conc luding that a ppellant’s ar g ument was 5 in r o ll b a c k

taxe s . Wh il e th e Ri zzo s w e r e u lt im a te ly a b le to o b ta in

a s p e c ia l- u s e v a lu a ti o no nthe proper ty for 2008, they

wer e unable to secure such a va l uation for the y ear s 2002 to 2007. After
rec eiving a notice of intent to f ile a lawsuit due to the unpa id tax es fr om the appra isal district, the Riz zos paid the rollback taxes for 2002 to 2007 in the amount of $19,439.18.

The Rizz os broug ht suit aga inst Ancira ba sed on several c laims, including br e a c h o f c on tr a c t. A ft e r a be nc h tr ia l, t

he tr ial c ourt

e nte re d ju dg me nt i n f

a vo r o f A nc ir a . T his appea l followed.
DI SCU SSIO N

The Rizz os prese nt two issues on appea l. I n the first, they argue that, under

the tax
c od e, the sa le of

land c ann ot t ri g g e r t he imp os iti on

of ro llb a c k taxes, and

the re fo re “ the on ly plausible explanation for the imposition of the rollback taxes is that Appellee chang ed the use of the Property prior to the date he sold the proper ty to A ppellants.” I n their second issue on appea l, the Riz zos arg ue that, since the taxes could only have be en trig g ere d by

Ancira ’s cha

ng e in use of the pr op e rt y , p ay me nt o f t he ro llb a c k taxes i s A nc ir a ’s re sp on sib ili ty un de r t he c on tr a c t. 6ina de qu a te ly br ie fe d) . In th e int e re sts of jus tic e , h ow e ve r, we a dd re ss t he me ri ts o f t

he Rizzos ’ argume nts
. 6

I n this case, the Rizz os had the burde n to show by a pre pondera nce of the evidenc e that An ci ra breac hed the c ontrac t by failing to pay

the rollbac k taxes assessed by the Comal Appra i s al Di strict. See J ames M. Clifton, Inc. v. Premillenium, Ltd. , 229 S.W .3d 857, 859 (Tex . Ap p. —Da ll as 2 00 7, no pet .) ( reci ti ng ele men ts of brea ch of co nt ract cla im ). P aragraph 13 (B) of the c ontrac t delineate s responsibility for rollback t axes, indicating that Ancira , as the seller , was responsible for

taxes resulting fr om the “Seller’ s chang e in use of the Property prior to closing ” or “denia l of a spec ial use valuation on the Property claimed by

Seller.” On appe al, the Rizz os only addre ss the portion of par ag raph 13( B) rel at i n g to the “Seller’ s chang e in use of the Property .” I n their two issues, the Rizz os state that, under the tax code,
ro llb a c k taxes c an o nly

be a sse sse d if the us e of the pr op e rt y wa s cha ng e d for the pe ri od

of tim e in question. See Tex. Tax Code § 23.55. Ba sed on this statute, the Riz zos arg ue that the r ollback taxes must h a v e b e e n a s s e s s e d d u e to A n c ir a ’ s c h an g e in u s e o f th e p r o p e rty , a s th e y w e r e a s s essed f or y ear s during which Anc ira owne d the l and. This argument, howeve r, rests on a faulty premise. The fa ct t h at t h e t ax code lay s out the proper proce dures f

or a c erta in task does not g uara ntee that the proce dures we re f

ollowed in any

g iven ca se. Ac cording ly , the fa ct that the tax code indicate s that rollback ta x es should only be asse ss ed d u e t o a chang e in use of pr operty does not compel the conclusion that, in this case, the taxes were a ssessed for that re as o n. The Rizz os’ ar g uments on
a pp e a l c on se qu e ntl y

la c k me ri t. Fur ther, the evidenc e admitt ed at trial does not otherwise establish that the rollbac k taxes were a ssessed due to Anc ira’s c hang e in use of the proper ty
. The Riz zos pre sented e vidence7

to the trial court that L isa Ancira told Campos, a repr esentative of the Comal Appra isal District, that the land wa s no longe r beingused for ag ricultural purposes prior to the assessment of t he rollbac k taxe s . Campos passed this information along to a land appr aiser, a fter w hich the land wa s
rea ppraised a

nd rollback ta x es we re a ssessed. The Riz zos arg ue that this evidenc e shows that the rollback ta x es we re a ssessed due to Anc ira’s c hang e in use of the pro p er t y . Ho wever, Anc ira prese nted evidenc e that the r ollback t ax es wer e asse ssed only afte r the sale of the prope rty to the Riz zos. Fur

ther, Bar bara Ancira testified that the prope rty had bee n used for

ag ricultural pur

poses from 1997 until the sale of the proper ty t o t h e Riz zos, and that L isa Ancira had no per sonal kn ow le dg e re g ard ing

the us e of

the land a ft e r 20 02
. A r e a so na ble fi nd e r o f f

a c t c ou ld r e so lve thi s conflicting evidenc e to conc lude that the rollbac k taxes were assessed due to something other than An c ir a ’s c ha

ng e in us e of

the pr op e rt

y , a nd the re fo re tha

t th e Rizzos fa ile d to c arr y the ir burd e n to prove that Ancira

brea ched the contra ct. Acc ording ly , we find no g rounds on which to r ever se the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.
CO NC LU SION

We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: Jul y

29, 2010