### NUM BER 13-09- 0057 7-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
ROB ERTE. BOL KC OM , A pp ellan t,
v. CA M ERO N A PPR

A ISA L DIST RIC T, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 10 3r d D is tr ic t C o u rt o f C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez Thi s a pp ea l i nv ol v es a t ax d i s pu te b etw ee n pro s e ap pe l l an t, R ob er t E. B ol k c om , and appel lee , Cameron Apprais al Di str ic t (“ the Di str ic t” ). After condu cti ng a he ar ing , t he tr ial co urt found that Bol kc om faile d to ex hausthi s a dmini strati v e remedie s a nd di smi ss edB ol k c om ’ s ori gi na l pe t i t i on se t s fort h t he fol l ow i ng “app l i c ab l e fa c t s ”: 1 1. I am R ober t E[

. ] Bol k com [ , ] a U

. S

. ci t i z en, C am er on Co. T axpay er , and par t i al ownerof bl ock 13 , t he soci al and r ecr eat i onal ( com m on el em ent ) of Las Pal m as I , a c on do m i ni um l ocat ed a t [ si c] Br ownsv i l l e, T exas a nd I am pr oceedi ng a s pl ai nt i ff(l i t i gant pr o se)

. T he cl ai m s o f t hi s l aw s ui t ar e ba sed u pon t he d eni al of m y r i ght s t o du e pr ocess a nd a s a consequ ence, ben ef i t s av ai l abl e t o m e as set f or t h i n t he T exas Pr oper t y T ax Code. 2 . T h e C a m e r o n D is tr ic t A p p r a is a l o ff ic e a t n e a r b y S a n B e n ito ( d e f e n d a n t) a t its in c e p tio n in 1 9 8 2 d e n ie d m e th o s e r ig h ts w h e n it e r r e d in c e r tif yin g T h o m a s I [. ] S im s a s t h e r e s p o n s ib le t axpay er f or 89% of

bl ock 13.

. . . and w i t hhel d k nowl edge ofi t fr om m e f or t he next 23 y ear s. T h a t p r o p e r ty w a s a n d is a c o m m o n e le m e n t o fL a s P a lm a s I, a n d r e q u ir e d to b e s p e c if ic a lly cl assi f i ed u ndert he T exas Condom i ni um [ A] ct of 198 1. D ef endan t i s com m anded by chap t er 23. 18 t o cl assi f y al l condom i ni um s t hat qua l i fy as speci al assessm ent par cel s ( and Las Pal m as I was a per f ect exam pl e t o i ncl ude)

. T hey act ed upon an i m pr oper i nt er pr et at i on o f t he L as Pal m as I docum ent s[ ] and hav e r ef used t o acknowl edge or cor r ect i t f or t he p ast 26 y e a rs
. T h i s m i s ta k e m u s t b e c o n s i d e re d a “c l e ric a l e rr o r” a n d re q u i re s ju d i c ia l p r o c e s s to [ i ] nt er pr et beca use i t i nv ol v es a det er m i nat i on offa ct fr om a decl ar at i on f i l ed u ndert he T exas C ond[ o] m i ni um Act of 198 1. Bol k com l at er asser t s: 4. T hi s er r or has been br oughtt o t he d ef endan t [ ’ ] s at t ent i on f or m al l y and i nf or m al l y ( i n pe r son a n d i n w rit i n g ) o v e r a p e rio d o f th e la s t [f ]o u r ye a rs a n d th e m a tte r h a s b e e n re c e i v e d w i th i ndi ff er ence and si l ence on e v er y occasi on. Eff or t s t o corre ct i t hav e be en [ a] t t em pt ed t hr ough [ a] dm i ni st r at i v e pr ocess ( appr ai sal r ev i ew boar d) and f ai l ed b ecause of a l ack of c o m p re h e n s i o n o f l a w . . . . 2 the s uit for lac k of j ur is dicti on. By three is sues , Bol kc om arg ues that: ( 1) he w as deni ed due proces s; (2 ) he w as deni ed th e oppor tuni ty to protes t t he “cert ific ati on of Thomas Si ms” as the “respon si ble tax pay er”; and (3 ) the tr ial courthas jur is dic ti on ov er hi s d is pute
w i th t he D i s tr i c t. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On M ar ch 19, 2 009, Bo lkc o m file d s uitag ain st the D is tr ic t al leg ing “ neg li g ence, ” “d ereli ction of

duty ,” and “a cc ountabi li ty ” ar is ing from a “c ler ic al er ro r” reg ardin g the Di str ic t’ s a pprais al of prope rty and tax es all eg edl y

ow ed on proper

ty i n wh ich Bol kc om claime d to be part-owner. In his orig inal pe tition, Bolkcom alleged tha t “ef forts to correct 1 [hi s t ax co ncer n ] hav e been attempt ed th ro ug h admi nis trati v e proces s ( apprais al re v iew board) and f a ile d

. . . .” Al thoug h Bol kc om att ached “ ex hib it s” to his peti ti on, h e di d not3

atta ch do cum ent s indicatin g tha t he ha d exhaust ed o r attem pte d t o e xhau st his admini strati v e remedie s. The Di str ic t: ( 1) g enerall y deni ed Bol kc om’s all eg ati ons; ( 2) as ser ted g ov er nmental imm unity; (3) specially

ex cept ed to Bolkco m’s failure to state a cause of action upo n w hich
re li ef mig ht be g ra nted; and (4 ) filed a ple a to the jur is dicti on all eg ing that the cour t l ack ed jur is dictio n o ver an y

cl aims not author iz ed by the tax co de and that Bol kc om had n ot
ex haust ed th e req uired admi nis trati v e remedie s. Bol kc om f ile d a “ Res ponse to Defendant ’s Or ig ina l Answ er”; how ev er , t he respon se does not i ndi cat e tha t Bo lk com
ex haust ed his admini strati v e re medies or to w hat e xtent he pursued his g ri ev ance w it h the apprais al re v iew

board. On A ug ust12, 2009, both par ti es appeared for a hear ing before the tr ial cour t. At the h ear ing , Bol kc om sta ted that he had fil ed a protes t and appeared before the apprais al
re v iew board. Bol kc om t h e n s tated thata protes t hea ri ng w as hel d butthe apprais al
re v iew board “nev er

ac know led g ed [h is protes t]; al l they di d w as loo k u p at the c eil ing .” Bol kc om prov ide d no ev ide nce to s uppor t his as ser

ti on th at a protes t hea ri ng w as hel d. The tr ial co urt g ra nted the D is tr ic t’ s p lea to the j ur is dicti on. Thi s a ppeal ens ued. II. J URI S DI CT I ON A . A pp licab le L aw A pl ea to the jur is dicti on c hal len g es the d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s auth or ity to deter mine a
ca u se of acti on. Bl

and Indep. Sch. D is t. v. Blue , 34 S .W .3 d 54 7, 5 54 ( Tex

. 20 00 )

. To inv oke a c our

t’ s a uthor ity , a pla int iff must all eg e fact s that aff ir mati v ely demonstrate t hat the cour t has jur is dicti on to he ar the caus e. T

ex. D ep’ t of Par ks & Wildli fe v . M ir anda , 133 S.W .3d 2 17, 2 26 ( Tex . 2004). Cou rt s must cons ide r ev ide nce w hen neces sar y to deci de4

juris d ic tiona l issues. I d. at 221; T ex. Natur

al Res . C onser

vat ion C om m ’

n v . White , 46 S.W .3d 8 64, 8 6 8 ( T e x. 2001) ; Blue , 34 S. W .3d at 554 -55. If the relevant evidence is undi sput ed or

f ail s t o rais e a factq uest ion on t he j ur is dicti onal i ss ue, a di str ic t c our t r ule s
on the ple a to the jur is dicti on as a matter of l aw
. Mi ra nda , 133 S.W .3d a t 228

. W e rev iew de nov o the g ra nt of a p lea to the j ur is dic ti on. Id. at 226. A district court h as “excl usive, appe llate an d original jurisdiction of all actions, proceed ing s, and remedie s, ex cepti n c ases w here ex cl usi v e , a ppel lat e and or ig ina l jurisdiction m ay be co nferred by this Constitu tion or o the r law on so me o the r cou rt, tribuna l, or adm inistrative body.” T EX
. C ON ST
. art. V, § 8. The adm ini s t ra t iv e revi ew proce ss is int ended t o reso lv e the m ajo ri ty of taxprotes ts at the admini strati v e lev el and t o reli ev e the burden on the cour

t s y ste m . Cam eron Appra isal Dist. v. R ourk , 1 9 4 S

. W

. 3 d 5 0 1 , 5 0 2 (T e x. 2006) ; Webb Co unty

Appr ais a l Dis t. v. New L ar

edo Hotel , 7 9 2 S

. W

. 2 d 9 5 2 , 9 5 4 (T e x. 1 9 9 0 ). Ju d ic ia l r e vie w o f a d m in is t ra t ive o rd e rs is n o ta va il a b l e u n l e s s a ll a d m in is t ra t ive
re medies hav e been pursued to t he full estextent. See Rourk , 194 S.W .3d a t 502

. If an agency has excl usive ju risdiction to d ete rmine a ma tter, a litigant’s failure to e x hau st all admini strati v e remedie s b efore seek ing judi ci al rev iew of the admin is trati v e body ’s ac ti ons d e p r i v e s t h e co u rto f

su bje c t -m a t t e r j u ri s d ic t io n o ve r c la im s wit h in t h e b o d y’s e xc lu s ive jur is dic ti on, and the cour t must dis mis s s uch cl aims w it hout preju dic e. T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 2001.17 1 ( Ver non 200 8) ; Sub aru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissa n , Inc. , 84 S.W .3d 2 12, 2 20 ( Tex . 200 2)

.W i t hout exha ust i on o fadm i ni st r at i v e r em edi es, t he t r i al cour t ’ s orde r g r ant i ng t he p l ea t o t he 2 j ur i sdi ct i on i s onl y i m pr operi fBol k com ’ s case f al l s i nt o on e of fi v e except i ons: ( 1) an adm i ni st r at i v e ag ency p u r p o r ts to a c t o u ts id e its s ta tu to r y p o w e r s ; ( 2 ) th e is s u e p r e s e n te d is p u r e ly a q u e s tio n o fla w ; ( 3 ) c e r ta in const i t ut i onal i ssues a r e i nv ol v ed; (4) t he adm i ni st r at i v e r em edi es ar e i nadeq uat e an d t he e xhaust i on o f adm i ni st r at i v e r em edi es woul d cau se i r r epar abl e i nj ur y ; and ( 5) f ai l ur e t o pr ov i de Bol k com not i ce of app r ai sed p ro p e rty v a l u e d e p rive s th e D i s tri c t o f ju ris d i c ti o n a n d vo i d s th e a p p ra i s a l

. G ib s o n v . W a c o In d e p . S c h . D is t. , 9 7 1 S .W .2 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 1 -0 2 (T e x . A p p .– W a c o 1 9 9 8 ), vacat ed o n other gr ounds , 22 S

. W

. 3d 84 9, 85 1 (T ex
. 20 00 ). 5 Den ial of due proces s i s o ne ex cept ion to the g eneral ru le re q uir ing ex haust ion of admini strati v e remedie s b efore j udi ci al int er v enti on. See G ib so n v. W aco Indep. Sch. 2 Di st. , 971 S.W .2d 1 99, 2 01- 02 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 1998) , vac a te d o n oth er

gr ounds , 22 S.W .3d 8 49, 8 51 ( Tex . 200 0)

. The c o nst it uti onal cl aim ex cept ion to the e x haust ion of admini strati v e remedie s d oct ri ne w as created to protec t proper ty ow ners f ro m the los s o f prop erty w ithou t an op portu nity to be hea rd at the adm inistrative lev el and w ithou t recourse to j udi ci al re v iew

. Den ton C ent. Appr ais al Di st. v. C .I. T. Leas ing

C or p. , 115 S.W .3d 2 61, 266 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 20 03, pet. den ied). Th e col le c t io n o f taxes constitut es a dep riv ation of

prope rty ; accordin gly , a taxing unit m ust af ford a prop erty owner due proce ss of law and must p ro vide meani ng ful reli ef to rect ify any unc onst it uti onal depr iv ati on. McKesson Corp. v. Div. of Alcoholic Beve rage s & Toba cco , 496 U.S. 18, 31 (1990)

. At a mini mum, due proces s re q uires noti ce and a fair oppor tuni ty to be heard. Id. at 37. In t ax
cas es, Tex as cour

ts hav e hel d tha t due proces s i s s ati sfied if t h e t a x pay er

i s g iv en an opp ortun it y t o b e h eard before an assessm entboa rd at som e stage of the pro ceed ings. ABT Gal ves ton Ltd. P’

shi p v. Gal ves ton Cen t. Appr ais al Di st. , 1 3 7 S

. W

. 3 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 5 (T e x. App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 04, no pe t.); C .I. T. Leas ing C or p. , 115 S.W .3d a t 266

. B. A nal ysis By hi s thi rd iss ue, Bolk com asse rt s that the tri al cour t had juri sdi cti on ov er

hi s t axB ecause Bol k com ’ s fi r st and second i ssues addr ess t he m er i t s ofhi s case, we con si der hi s i ssues 3 ou t of ord er. 6 is sue. W e di sag re e.

3 The tr ial courtm akes its deter minat ion of jur is dicti on based upon w hat is present ed in the p lea din g s a nd atthe hear ing

. See B lue , 34 S.W .3d at 55 5. Altho ugh the trial court
ma y not con sider the merits o f t h e und erly ing cl aim s w hen dete rmining jurisdiction, it is appel lan t’ s burd en to alleg e fact s aff ir mati v ely demons trati ng the tr ial co urt’ s j ur is dicti on. See Blue , 34 S.W .3d a t 554 ; Mi ra nda , 133 S.W .3d a t 226

. I n h is o ri gi n a l p e t it io n , B o lk c o m a ll e ge d t h a t “e f fo rt s t o c o rr e c t [ h is t a x is s u e ] h a ve been attempted throug h admi nis trati v e proces s (a pprais al re v iew board) and faile d.” The Di str ic t fil ed an answ e r co m bin ed w it h a p lea to the j ur is dicti on to w hic h Bol kc om
re spond ed; h ow ev er , Bo lk com’ s respon se did not address the is sue of jur is dic ti on, s et forth fa c t s , o r p ro vid e e vid e n c e s u p p o rt in g t h e a ll e ga t io n t h a th e e xh a u s t e d h is a d m in is t ra t ive
re medies

. Mo re ov er , atthe Aug ust 12, 2 009 hea ri ng , t he tr ial co urt s oug ht t o det er mine
w het her Bo lkcom had ex hau sted his adm inistrative rem edie s by inquiring into Bo lkcom ’s alleged ap pea rance befor e the ap praisal revi ew boa rd. In respo nse, Bolkcom mere ly sta ted t hat h e appea re d before the apprais al re v iew board, bu t t hat t he apprais al re v iew board “ made no re cord of it .” Bo lk com present ed no e vi dence to suppo rtthi s a ss erti on. On ap peal , how ev er , Bo lk com as ser ts that he has “ copi es [o]f the present ati on before t he [apprais al re v iew

board] ( w hic h w as re corded el ect ro nic[s ic ] and w as [t]a ken under oath ), ”
w hich ap pea rs to und ermin e his state me nt th at th e ap praisal revi ew boa rd failed to make
a record of the hear ing

. In any ev ent, Bol kc om has not present ed ei ther the tr ial co urt or thi s C our

t w it h a c opy

of t h e al leg ed present ati on. Upon rev iew of the reco rd before us,
w e c oncl ude t hat B olk com ha s fai led to all eg e facts that aff ir mati v ely demonst ra te t hat t heBecause we hav e he l d t hat t he t r i al cour t l acked j ur i sdi ct i on o ver Bol k com ’ s cl ai m , and beca use 4 Bol k com ’ s i ssue p er t ai ni ng t o t he “ cer t i f i cat i on o fT hom as Si m s” as t he “ r esponsi bl e t axpay er ” r equi r es an a n a l y s i s o f t h e m e rit s o f t h e c a s e , w e n e e d n o t a d d re s s h i s s e c o n d i s s u e
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 4 7 .1 ; see a lso Tex. D ep't of Par

ks & W i l dlif e v. Mir anda , 1 3 3 S .W .3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 6 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ); Bl and I ndep. S ch. D ist

. v. Bl ue , 34 S

. W

. 3d 54 7, 55 4 (T ex
. 20 00 ). 7 tr ial co urt has j ur is dicti on to hear the caus e. See Blue , 34 S.W .3d a t 554 ; Mi ra nda , 133 S.W .3d a t 226

. W e ov er ru le Bol kc om’s thi rd i ss ue. By his f irst issue , B o lk c om asserts tha t he was denied his ri ght to due process becau se the D is tr ic t fail ed to co mply w it h s ect ion 2 5 .1 1 o f the tax co de. T EX
. T A X C ODE A NN . § 25.11( c) ( Ver non 200 8) ( “W it h in 3 0 day s a fter a n ow ner q ual ifies for s eparate tax ati on or

ca ncel s a q ual ific ati on, t he c hie f apprai ser sh all del iv er

a w ri tten noti ce of the q ual ific ati on to the other ow ners.” ). Due proce ss chall eng es that hav e succ ess fully been made i n c our

t i ncl ude i nst ances w hen tax pay ers w ere notafforded any oppor tuni ty to be heard. See A ppr

ais al Rev

iew B d. of

the El Pas o C ounty

C ent. Appr

ais al Di st. v. F is her , 8 8 S

. W

. 3 d 8 0 7 , 8 1 3 (T e x. A p p
. – E l P a s o 2 0 0 2 , p e t

. d e n ie d ). Ho we ve r, a n a d m in is t ra t ive
re medy ex is ts for Bol kc om’s “ due proces s” arg ument, and Bo lk com does not a ss ert t hat he w as deni ed th e oppor tuni ty to be heard. See T EX
. T A X C OD E A NN . § 41.411( a) ( Ver non 200 8) (“A prop erty owner is ent itled to prote st before the a ppra isal review b oard t he failure of the chief app raiser or the a ppra isal rev iew boa rd to provide or deliv er any notice to which the prope rty

ow ner is entitle d.”). Furtherm ore, B o lk com has no t provided an y ev iden ce demonst ra ti ng a failure by the apprais al re v iew

board to cons ide r his se cti on 25. 11 argume nts ev en thou gh he asserts tha t he has electro nic copie s of the hea ring allegedly held before the app raisal rev iew boa rd. W e conclu de that Bo lkcom ’s due pro cess claim does not e x cus e hi m from ex haust ing his admini strati v e re medies before seek ing j udi ci al
re v iew

. W e ov er ru le Bol kc om’s first is sue. 48 III . C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice
Del iv er ed and filed the 12th day of Aug ust , 201 0.