For convenie nce, w e cite to the c urre nt version of the ta x code unle ss otherwise noted. 1 

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

NO. 03-0 5 -00 784 -CV

Travis Central Appraisal Districtand T ravis County Appraisal

Review Board , Appellan ts

v. Marshall F ord Marina, Inc.; S & W Mar ina, L LP; Joe J. Higginb otham Inc., d / b / a Ca p Co . ; M o l ec u l a r I mp ri n ts , I n c. ; A R & J R R a d i o T o w er s # 1 L P; Danly Pr opertie s, Inc.; Uniqu e Cabinets, Inc.; 1080 Inc.; Bre ed & Co.;

and L and Rover Austin LP, Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 261S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN40135 0 , HO NORAB LE GISELA D. TRIANA-DO Y AL , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N

Texas la w is w ell established that the reme dies available to tax pay ers under the Texas Tax Code are exclusive. Te x . Tax. Code Ann. § 42.09 (West 2008); see, e .g. , Cameron Appraisal 1 Di st. v . R ou rk, 194 S.W. 3d 50 1, 50 2 ( Te x. 20 06 ); Gr e gg Cou nty Ap prais al D ist . v . La idl

aw W as te Sys., Inc

. , 9 07 S.W. 2d

12 , 1 6 ( Te x. Ap p. —T y le r 1 99 5, wr it d e nie d) ; Scott v. Harris M ethodist HEB , 87 1 S. W.2 d 5 48 , 5 50 (T e x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 1 99 4, no wr it) ; W

ats on v . Ro bert

so n Co un ty Appraisal Review Bd. , 79 5 S

. W

. 2 d 307, 310 (Tex. App.—Waco 1990, no writ). The question pr e se nte d in

thi s a pp e a l is wh e the r a ta xing a uth or ity , as opp os e d to a

ta xpay e r, is s ub

je c t to the sameWe refe r to the appe ll ee s co l l ec t i v ely as the “ Taxpay ers” unless otherwise note d. The 2 Taxpay ers a

re te n busines s es wh o o wn bus iness persona l property in Travis County . The rec ord re flec ts that Hardi n I n t er es t s, I nc.; Student L eg acy , L P; and NFP Insuranc e Servic es, Inc., three taxpay ers who w ere orig inally named in the suit ag ains t t h e Di strict and the B oard, no ns uit e d th e ir

c la ims pr ior

to t ri a l. We refe r to the District and the Boa rd collec tively

as the “ appellants.” 3 2 exclusive remedies a s provided by statute. Be cause we c onclude that it i s , we aff irm the district

c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

BACK GR OUND

Thi s ap p ea l conce rns a c halleng e to ad va lorem taxes for tax y ear 2003 and ar ises from prope rty

tax protests brought by

various taxpay ers, includingappellee s Marshall For d Marina, I nc.; S & W M ar i n a, L L P; J oe J. Higg inbotham I nc., d/b/a Cap Co.; Molecular I mprints, I nc.; AR & J R R ad io Towers #1 L P; Danly Properties, Inc.; Unique Cabine ts, I nc.; 1080 Inc.; Bre e d & Co. ; and

L and Rov e r Aus tin

L P, a g a in s t t

h e T r a v is Ce n tr a l A

p p r a is a l D is trict 2 (the “ District”) a

nd decide d by

the Travis County

Appra isal Review B oard ( the “B oard” ). I n the 3 spring of 2003, the District issued tax notices to the Taxpay er s n otify ing the m of their appr aised proper ty values for

ad valor em tax purposes. The Tax pay ers did not file a pr otest as authorized by the tax code. See Tex. T ax Code Ann. § 41.41 (West 2008) (a uthorizi ng taxpay er pr otest). The Boa rd appr oved the 2003 a

ppraised va lues for inclusion on the 2003 appraisal roll on J uly 24, 2003. Th a t sa me da y the Di str ic t’ s c hie f a

pp ra ise r c e rt if

ie d th e 20 03 a

pp ra isa l r oll to t

he ta xing un its

.As it ex isted at the time, subsection 22.23(c ) provided: 4 I f bef ore Dec ember 1, 2003, a person files a rendition statement for the 2003 tax y ear that provides the infor

mation require d by

Sect i o n 22.01 as that sec tion ex ists on J anuar y 1, 2004, and, as a result of t hat information, the c hief a ppraiser discovers that some or all of that person’s tang ible persona l proper ty used for the produc tion of inc ome wa s omi tte d fr om the a pp ra isa l ro ll in on e of the tw o precedi ng y e ars , the chief appra iser may

not ad d t h e v alue of

the omitted property

to the 2001 or 2002 appra isal roll. This subsection expi res January 1, 2005. Act of Ma

y 31, 2003, 78th L eg ., R.S., ch. 1173, § 6, 2003 Tex. Gen. L aws 3353, 3355-56 ( expired J an. 1, 2005). 3

After t he appr aisal roll was c ertified by the B oard, the various Ta x pay ers f iled amnesty rendition statements as allowed under f ormer subse ction 22.23(c) of the tax code. See Act 4 of May 31, 2003, 78th L eg ., R.S., ch. 1173, § 6, 2003 Tex. Gen. L aws 3353, 3355-56 ( expired J an. 1, 2005). A fter r ece ipt of the Taxpay ers’ amnesty rendition statements, the Boar d on J anuar y 6, 2004, issued notices (“First Appraisal Noti ces” ) proposing chang es to the 2003 appr aised values o f th e T a xp ay e r s ’ b u s in e s s p e r s o n a l p r o p e rty

. T h e F ir s t A p p r a is a l N o ti c e s a ll o wed e ach taxpay er to prote st the proposed c hang e in value by filing a written protest within 30 day s, which the Taxpay ers did. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 41.41 (West 2008). In their notices of protest, the Taxpay ers alleg ed that appellants’ actions wer e unlawful and outside the provisions of the tax code, the a c tio ns of

the c hie f a

pp ra ise r a nd the B oa rd in i nc re a sin g the va lue of the Taxpay e rs ’ b us ine ss person al p ro perty

afte r the a

ppraisal r oll had been c ertified w ere without lega l authority , and appellants violated due proce ss by failing to give proper notice and a n opportunity

to be hea rd bef ore approvingthe value inc rea se. The rec ord re flec ts that the District did not amend the F irst Appraisal Notices in re sponse to the Taxpay ers’ protests or other wise re quest a c ontinuance to do so.T h e p ar t ies stipulated at trial that the tra nscript of the F ebrua

ry 10, 2004, hear ing 5 repr esente d the positions of all parties involved, including the Taxpay ers, the D istrict, and the B oard. At t h e t i m e o f t h e First ARB Orde rs, sec tion 42.02, entitled “Right of Appe al by Chief 6 Appra iser,” pr ovided: On written a

pproval o f t h e b o ard of direc tors of the a ppraisal district, the c hief ap p ra i s er i s en t i t l edt o ap p ea l an o rd er o f t h e ap p ra i s al re v i ew b o ar d d et erm i n i n g: (1) a taxpay er pr otest as provided by Subchapter

C, Chapter 41; or 4 The B oard he ld multi ple hea ring s on the Taxpay ers’ protests o n Fe bruar y 10th, Marc h 9 th, and

June 11 th, 20 04 (“ F ir st Pr ote st H e ari ng s” ). Th e tr ans c ri pt f ro m th e F e br

ua ry 10 th he ari ngde mon str a te s th e Ta xpay e rs ’ a rgume nts

. At that hear ing, the Tax p ay er s argue d that the

5 District could not alter the appra ised values of the Tax pay ers’ proper ty afte r t he appraisal roll had alre ady been c ertified. See id. § 25.25 (West 2008). The Tax pay ers f urther a rg ued that, eve n if the pr op os e d in c re a se in v a lue wa s th e re su lt o f o mitte d p ro pe rt y , th e Di str ic t ha d f

a ile d to c omp ly

wi th th e s tatuto r

y p r e r e qu is it e s f

o r a d d in g o mi tt e d p r o p e rty to th e a p p r a is a l r o ll. See id. §§ 25.19 (re quiring notice), .21 (omitted proper ty) (W est 2008). I n addition, the Tax pay ers arg ued that the District failed to de monstrate that the pr o p o s ed i n cr ease in appra ised value w as the re sult of

o m i t t e d p r o p e rt y. After the Fir st Protest Hearing s, the Boa rd issued final or ders ( “F irst ARB Or ders” ) in favor o f t h e Taxpay ers se tting the a ppraised va lue of the Tax pay ers’ proper ty at the orig inal 20 03 a pp ra ise d v a lue s. Th e F ir st A RB Or de rs do no t st a te the g ro un ds on wh ic h th e B oa

rd ru le d in the Taxpay ers’ favor . Although se ction 42.02 of the tax code authorized the chief appra iser, upon

wr itt e n a pp ro va l of

the Di str ic t’ s b oa

rd of dir e c tor s, to a

pp e a l th e F ir st A RB Or de rs to d istri c t c ourt , the c hie f a

pp ra ise r d id n ot a

pp e a l. 6(2) a taxpay er’ s motion t o chang e the a ppraisal r oll filed under Sec tion 25.25. Act of Ma

y 17, 2001, 77th L eg . R.S., ch. 1430, § 32, sec . 42.02, 2001 Tex. Gen. L aws 5109, 5121 (codifie d as ame nded at Te x . Tax Code Ann. § 42.02 (West 2008)). 5 There afte r, the Ta x pay ers r ece ived another 2003 Notice of Ap p ra i sed Va lue ( “ S e c o n d A p p r a i s a l N o t i c e s ” )

. T h e S e c o n d A p p r a i s a l N o t i c e s w e r e i s s u e d f o r t h e s a m e p r o p e rt y, at the same location, and f or the same tax y ear

that the District previously contende d was omitted from the a

ppraisal r oll during the First Protest Hea ring s. Rather than incre asing the entire value of the Taxpay e rs ’ p ro pe rt

y fo r 2 00 3, the Se c on d App ra isa l N oti c e s e sta bli sh e d s up ple me nta l a c c ounts

on ly fo r t he inc re a se in v a lue tha

t the Di str ic t c onte nd e d wa s omi tte d pr op e rt y and ha d p re vio us ly tried to add in the First Appra isal Notices. I n a cover letter that acc ompanied the Second Appr aisal Notices, the D istrict’s direc tor of business per sonal proper ty stated:

Th e e nc los e d 2 00 3 N oti c e of Ap pr a ise d V a lue is i n r e fere nc e to o mitte d b us ine ss persona l property

that has bee n supplemented to the Travis Centra l Appraisal District (TCAD) 2003 a

ppraisal r ecor ds in response to a 2003 spe cial a m n es t y rendition submitt ed by

the a b o v e refere nced a ccount. TCAD ha d previously delivere d notification of havingadded this om i tted proper ty in an appr aisal re view boar d decision letter inf

orming the business or it s reg istered ag ent of the i ncre ase in va lue on the main ac count . . . . A protest of that omitt ed prope rty value increa se was filed, and at t he ensuinghear ing the Tr a vis County

Ap pr a isa l Re vie w B oa

rd de te rm ine d th a t T CA D h a d n ot a c te d in a c c or da nc e wi th S e c tio n 2 5. 21 of th e Tex as Prop e rt y Tax Code on

the a pp ro pr iate proce dure to c ommunicate the addition of omitted property , resulting in the value being set bac k to the appra ised value ref lected on the acc ount’s orig inal 2003 Notice of Appra ised Value . The e nclosed Notice of Apprai s ed Va lue is a supplemental acc ount that will be active f or 2003 only , and re prese nts t h e am o u n t of the value re d u ct i o narri v edat i nt h at h ea ri n g.

The Tax pay ers pr otested the c hief a ppraiser ’s p ro p o sed ac tions as authorized byThe district c ourt dec lined to awar d attorney ’s fe es to the Taxpay ers, but the Tax pay ers do 7 no t r a ise that is su e on

a pp e a l. 6 statute. See id. § 41.41 (allowing taxpay er protest). Additional he aring s wer e held be fore the B oard on J une 1, 2004, June 11, 2 0 0 4, and F ebrua ry 8, 2005 (“Sec ond Protest Hear ings” ). Afte r the Second Protest Hea

ring s, the Boa

rd issued final or ders ( “Second A RB Or ders” ) i n favor of the Di str ic t in c re a sin g the a

pp ra ise d v a lue s of the Taxpay e rs ’ b us ine ss p e rs on a l pr op e rt y by the a mou nts pr op os e d b y

the Di str ic t in the Se c on d Ap pr a isa l No tic e s. Th e Taxpay e rs a pp e a le d the Se c on d A RB Or de rs to t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

se e kin g re ve rs a l of

tho se or de rs and

a tto rn e y ’s fe e s. Af te r a ben ch tr ia l, t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

re nd e re d ju dg me nt i n f

a vo r o f t he Taxpay e rs . I n its final judgment, the district court found “that the F irst ARB Or ders we re f inal and dispositive of a ll i ssu e s r a ise d at the F ir st Pr ote st He ari ng s, inc lud ing the c on c lus ion that th e re wa s n o p ro pe rt

y omitted from the appr aisal roll.” The judgme nt further stated that the “ Secon d Ap p raisal Notice s

are null and void pursuant to section 25.25 of the T ax C ode.” T h e d i s t ri ct co u rt al s o i s s u edfi n d i n gs 7 of fa ct and c onclusions of law. In rele vant par t, the district court found:

2. I n th e sp ri ng of 20 03 , the [Dis tr ic t] a pp ra ise d th e bu sin e ss p e rs on a l pr op e rt y of the [ T ax p ay ers] and issued Notice s of Appra ised Property Value f or 2 0 0 3 to th e [T a xp ay e r s ]. 3. Th e 20 03 a

pp ra ise d v a lue s o f t

he [Ta xpay e rs’] bu sine ss p e rs on a l pr op e rt y wer e appr oved by

the [Boar d] on J uly

24, 2003. 4

. The c h ie f a

p p r a is e r o f [th e D is tr ic t] c e rti f ie d th e 2 0 0 3 a

p p r a is a l r o ll to the taxi ng units on J uly

24, 2003. 5. [The District] sent a for m l et t er t o all owner s of taxable business persona l pr op e rt y in Tr a vis County , in c lud ingthe [Ta xpay e rs ], r e g ard ingSe nate B ill 340, now sec tion 22.23(c) of the Texas Tax Code.7

6. After the [Board] approve d and cer tified the 2003 values of

the [Tax pay ers’ ] persona l p ro perty , the [Tax pay ers] submitt ed amne sty renditions to [ the D is tr ic t]

. 7. After

rec eiving the [Tax pay ers’ ] amne sty renditions, [t he District] issued corr ecte d notices of va lue for 2003, ( the Fir st Appraisal Notice s). 8. I n the Fir st Appraisal Notice s, the column entitled “2 0 0 3 P revious Value” c on ta ins the 20 03 a

pp ra ise d va lue of the [Ta xpay e rs ’] p ro pe rt y a s o ri g ina lly cer tified by the [Boar d] and t h e column entitl ed “2003 Corr ecte d Value” repr esents the or igina l cer tified values plus the incr ease s over a nd above the previo u s l y certified values f or what [ the District] believed wa s omitt ed pr op e rt y re ve a le d f

ro m th e [Ta xpay e rs ’] amne sty re nd iti on s. 9. The [Taxpay ers] protest ed [t he District’s] First Appra isal Notices, i.e. the corr ecte d notices of 2003 value, and their repr esenta

tives appea

red at formal hear ings be fore the [ Boa

rd] on Fe bruar

y 10, Marc h 9, and June 11, 2004 (the First Protest Hea

ring s). 10

. Th e tr ans c ri pt f

ro m th e F e br

ua ry 10 , 200 4 F ir st Pr ote st H e ari ngre pr e se nts bo th t he [Ta xpay e rs ’] an d the [Dis tr ic t’ s] posi tio ns fo r al l of the F ir st Pr ote st He ari ng s. 11. Duringthe Fir st Protest Hearing s, the [Tax p ay ers] contende d, among other things, that they

had no omitted proper

ty from the a

ppraisal r oll and that [t he Di str ic t] ha d n o a

uth or ity to incre a se the a

pp ra ise d v a lue s o f t

he ir pr op e rt y over a nd above the previously

2003 cer tified values as such increa ses wer e prohibited by

section 25.25 of the T ax C ode. 12. After the First Protest Hea ring s conclude d, final orde rs wer e issued pursua nt to section 41.47 of the Tax Code, (the F irst ARB Or ders)

. 13

. Th e F ir st A RB Or de rs did no t inc re a se the va lue s of the pr ote ste d a c c ounts over a nd above the previously cer tified 2003 values and thus did not add the value of what [the District] contended wa s omitted property of the [Ta xpay e rs ] to the 20 03 a pp ra isa l r oll

. 14. Neither

the Chief Appraiser nor [t he Dist rict] appea led t he First ARB Or ders to district court pursuant to sec tion 42.02 of the Tax Code.8

15. The F irst ARB Or ders we re dispositive of all issues ra ised during the F ir st Pr ote st H e ari ng s, inc lud ingthe iss ue that th e re wa s n o o mitte d p ro pe rt y fr om t he a pp ra isa l r oll

. 16. After

the Fir st ARB Orde rs wer e issued, [the District] i ssued new a ppraisal notices to the [Tax pay ers], (the Second A ppraisal Notice s). * * * 19

. Th e va lue s c on ta ine d in the Se c on d App ra isa l N oti c e s we re the e xac t sa me values that [the District] previously soug ht to add to the appra isal ro l l , as omi tte d p ro pe rt

y , in the F ir st A

pp ra isa l N oti c e s. * * * 21

. [Th e Di str ic t] a sse rt e d th e same po sit ion in the F ir st Pro te st He ari ng s th a t it did in the Se cond P rotest Hea ring s, which wa s that the [Tax pay ers] had omi tte d p ro pe rt

y fr om t he 20 03 a pp ra isa l r oll

. * * * 23

. Af

te r t he Se c on d Pro te st He ari ng s, the [B oa rd ] ru le d in fa vo r of

[the Di str ic t] and a g a inst the [ Taxpay ers] and issued final or ders ( the Second ARB Orde rs), which adde d value f

or what [ the Dis trict] contended wa s omitt ed proper ty and that the [Boa

rd] previously

ref used to add duri ng the F ir st Pr ote st H e ari ng s.

Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a lso e nte re d th e fol lo wingc on c lus ion s o f l aw r e le va nt t o thi s a pp e a l:

1. Th e F ir st A RB Ord ers were dis po sit ive of a ll i ssu e s r a ise d d

ur ingthe F ir st Protest Hear ings, inc luding the issue that there was no omitted proper ty from the a pp ra isa l r oll

. 2. The Sec ond Appra isal Notices are null a nd void pur suant to section 25.25 of the Tax Code. 3. [Th e Di str ic t] ha d n o le g a l a uth or ity to iss ue the Se c on d App ra isa l N oti c e s.Spe c if ic a lly , a pp e lla nts con ten d th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d: ( 1) in f

ind ingthat th e F ir st 8 ARB Or ders we re dispositive of all issues ra ised at the F irst Protest Hearings ( Finding of F act No. 15); (2) in c oncluding that the First ARB Orde rs wer e dispositi ve of all iss u es ra i s ed at t he First Protest Hea

ring s (Conclusion of L aw No. 1 ); (3 ) i n concludingthat the Second Appr aisal Notices we re null and void pursua nt to section 2 5

. 2 5 o f t h e tax code ( Conclusion of L aw No. 2) ; (4) in con cl u d i n g t h at the District had no leg al authority to issue the Second Appr aisal Notice s (C on c lus ion

of L aw N o. 3) ; (5 ) in c on c lud ingthat th e on ly re me dy a va ila ble to t he Di str ic t w a s to appea l the First ARB Orde rs (Conclusion of L aw No. 4); (6) in conc luding that the D istrict had no imp lie d a uth or ity to i ssu e the Se c on d App ra isa l N oti c e s ( Con c lus ion of L aw N o. 5); and (7) in concluding that the values c ontained in the Second A RB Or ders we re null and void (Conc lusion of L aw No. 6)

. 9 4. Th e on ly avai lable re me dy to [the Di str ic t] f

or re dr e ss o f t

he F ir st A RB Orde rs was a

n appea l to dist rict cour

t pursuant to 42.02 of the Tax Code. 5. I n light of the detailed nature of the proce dures prescr ibed by the L eg islature, [t he District] had no implied au t h o ri ty under the Tax Code to is sue the Se c on d App ra isa l N oti c e s. 6. Since [the District] had no lawf ul authority

to iss u e t h e Second Appr aisal Notices, the va lues containe d in the Second ARB Orde rs ar e null and void. This appea l followed.

DI SCU SSIO N Ap pe lla nts ra ise seven

iss ue s c ha lle ng ingthe dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt. I n th e se 8 issues, appellants ar g ue that they wer e not re quired to appe al the F irst ARB O rd er s and that they

we re pe rm itt e d to iss ue ne w a pp ra isa l no tic e s to c or

re c t the no tic e de fe c ts a lle g e d in the Taxpay e rs ’ protests and to add the Taxpay ers’ omitted property to the appra isal roll. The Taxpay ers c ounter that the F ir st A RB Or de rs we re fi na l or de rs and we re dis po sit ive of

a ll i ssu e s r a ise d at th e F ir st Pr ote stSecti on 42.21(a) has not bee n amende d since the supr eme c ourt dec ided Cameron 9 Ap prais al D ist

ric t v . R ou rk, 194 S.W .3d 501, 502 (Tex. 2006). 10 He ar in g s an d th a t, in o r d e r to c h a ll e n g e th e F ir s t A RB O r d e r s , a p p e ll an ts w e r e r e qu ir e d to appea l tho se or de rs t o t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt

. B e c a u s e w e c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e qu e s t i o no f a p p e l l an t s ’ a v a i l a

ble

reme dy is disposi tive of this appea l, we turn to that issue.

Available Rem edy

I n their fifth issue, a

ppellants complain that the district court er red in c oncluding that the only reme dy available to the District for r edre ss of the F irst ARB Or ders wa s an appe al to district court pursua

nt to section 42.02 of the tax code. We re view the district c ourt’s conclusions of law de novo

. See B

MC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand , 83 S.W .3d 78 9 , 7 9 4 (Tex. 2002). Appellants ar g ue that they wer e not require d to pursue their available reme dies under the tax code and we re a

uthorized to iss ue new

appra isal notices after the Boa rd re ndere d the Fir st ARB Orde rs reje cting the District’s propose d incre ases in prope rty value. We disag ree . I n Cam e ro n App ra isa l D ist ric t v . R ou rk, the supreme court re aff irmed that the Te x as Tax Code pr ov ide s d e tailed a dmi nis tr a tiv e pr oc e dure s f or tho se wh o w ou ld c on te st t he ir pr op e rt y taxes. 194 S .W.3d at 5 0 2 . And the cour t rea ffirme d that administrative dec isions of an appra isal revie w board are final if not appe aled to the district cour t within 45 day s. Id. (citing Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.21(a ) (West 2008) ). 9 He re , it is un dis pu te d that ne ith e r the Di str ic t no r the B oa rd a pp e a le d the F ir st A RB Orde rs as a

uthorized in section 42.02 of the tax code as it exi sted at the time. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.02, su

pr a , note 6. Instead, a

ppellants issued the S econd Appraisal Notices in an attemptTo the extent appellants ar g ue that they wer e entitled to issue the Second A ppraisal 10 No tic e s to c or

re c t th e no tic e de fect all eged by the Taxpay e rs in t

he F ir st Pr ote st H e ari ng s, thi s argume nt i s w ith ou t me ri t. H a d a pp e lla nts wi sh e d to c or

re c t the a lle g e d noti c e de fe c t, t he y sh ou ld 11 to circumve nt the Boa

rd’s First ARB Orde rs, which denie d the District’s propose d incre ases to the 2003 appra ised values of Taxpay ers’ business persona l property . We conclude that the issuance of the Se c on d App ra isa l Noti c e s wa s an i mpe rm iss ibl e c oll a te ra l atta c k a g a ins t th e F ir st A RB Or de rs , which we re f

inal and appe alable. See Te x. Tax. Cod e Ann. § 42 .2 1( a ) (p e tit ion fo r review must be fi le d w ith in 4 5 d ay s o f f ina l or de r, oth e rw ise a

pp e a l is ba

rr e d) ; Ho od v. H

ays Co unty , 836 S.W .2d 327, 329 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no wri t ) (f i n ding that property

owner who fa iled to f oll owpr oc e dure s in

ta x co de c ou ld not c oll a te ra lly a tta c k de c isi on of a pp ra isa l r e vie w b oa

rd in subsequent lawsuit).

The plain languag e of se ction 42.02 of the tax code as it e x isted at the time authorized the District’s chie f appr aiser to ap p eal the First ARB O rder s. The leg islature thus provided appellants with an e x clusive re medy to challeng e orders of the appraisal review board. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.02 (pr oviding r ight of appea l by chief appra iser); .09 (r emedies unde r tax code ar e

e xclu siv e ); se e als o R ou rk, 1 94 S.W. 3d a t 50 2 (remed ies un der

ta x co de are e xclu siv e ); Laidlaw W as teSy s. , 90 7 S.W. 2d a t 16 (s a me ); Sc ott , 8 71 S.W. 2d a t 55 0 ( same ); W

atson , 795 S.W .2d at 310 (same) . Be cause the leg islature provided an exclusive reme dy , appellants c ould not sim ply ignor e the Fir st ARB Orde rs. See I n re Ame nt , 890 S.W .2d 39, 4 1 (T ex . 1 9 9 4 ) (whe re statute pr ovides

e xclu siv e re me dy , th a t r e me dy mus t be fo llo we d) ; Dallas v. W right , 36 S.W .2d 973, 974 (Tex. 1931) (s a me ). I n o rd e r t o c ha lle ng e the F ir st A RB Or de rs , a pp e lla nts w ere requ ir ed to a

pp e a l th os e

o rd er s t o district court as a uthorized in section 42.02 of the tax code. See T e x. Tax Code 10have r equeste d a continuanc e or a djournment of t he First Protest Hea ring s to do so. Moreover , even if the no tic e wa s de fe c tiv e , the B oa rd wa s r e qu ir e d to de te rm ine the me ri ts o f t he Ta xpay e rs ’ p ro te sts “on a n y o th e r g r o u n d s o f p r o te s t a u th o r iz e d ”

— in c lu d in g th e T a xp a y e r s ’ c la im th a t th e y had no omitted property

. See Te x. Ta x Code Ann. § 4 1. 41 1( b) (We st 2 00 8) ; se e al so Midlan d Ce nt. Appraisal Dist. v. Plains Mktg., L.P. , 2 02 S.W.3d 46 9, 47 5- 76 (T e x. Ap p. —E a stl and 20 06 , p e t. d en i ed ) ( fi n d i n g t h at i s s u e ha d b ee n p re s en t ed t o an d d ec i d edb y ap p ra i s al re v i ew b o ar d

ev en t h o u gh ta xpay e r h a d n ot i nc lud e d is su e in n oti c e of pr ote st an d rej ect ing argume nt t hat taxpay e r f

a ile d to exhaust administ rative r emedies) . There fore , once the Boa rd issued the First ARB Orde rs in favor of the Tax pay ers, those or ders we re f inal and subjec t to review only by way of appe al to d istrict court. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. §§ 42.02, .21 (West 2008). The issuanc e of the Second Appr aisal Notices wa s more than a

n attempt to corre ct the alleg ed noti ce defe ct; it was an e nd-run a round the eff ects of the First ARB Orde rs and the e x clusive re medy of appe al provided in the ta x code. We likewise reje ct appe llants’ argument that this Court’s decision in Ma g- T, L.P. v . Trav is 11 Central Appraisal

District , 161 S.W .3d 617 (Tex . App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) , controls the outcome of t h i s appea l. I n that case , the taxpay ers f iled a suit for de clar atory judgme nt and inj un c tiv e re lie f w ith ou t f ili nga pr ote st o r oth e rw ise e xha us tin g the ir

a dmi nis tr a tiv e re me die s. See id. at 623. Afte r initially g ranting a temporary restra ining order, the district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of

jurisdiction on the gr ounds that the taxpay ers f ailed to exhaust their administrative reme dies. Id. at 623. Finding no exception for the taxpay ers’ failure to exhaust, t his Court affirmed. Id. at 635. Unlike the c ircumstance s prese nted in Mag-T , it is appellants, not the Taxpay ers, who have f ailed to follow the e x clusive re medies set for th in the tax code. 12 Ann. §§ 42 .0 2, .0 9; Ro ur k , 1 94 S.W. 3d

a t 50 2; Lai dla w W

as te Sy s. , 9 07 S.W. 2d

a t 16 ; Sc ott , 87 1 S. W.2 d at 55 0; W

atson , 795 S.W. 2d

a t 31 0; see also Ame nt , 8 90 S.W. 2d a t 41 ; Dallas , 36 S.W .2d at 974. Havingchosen to for eg o the exclusive remedy available under the tax code, we

c o n c lu d e th a t a

p p e ll an ts w a iv e d an y e r

r o r in th e F ir s t A RB O r d e r s an d c an n o t n o w p ursue a n imp e rm iss ibl e c oll a te ra l a tta c k a g a ins t t ho se o rde rs . See H ood , 8 3 6 S. W. 2 d

a t 3 2 9

- 3 0

. We 11

ov e rr ule a pp e lla nts ’ f if th iss ue . Mo re ov e r, be c a

us e the qu e sti on of a

pp e lla nts ’ av a ila

ble re me dy

is dis po sit ive of

thi s a pp e a l, w e de c lin e to r e a c h a pp e lla nts ’ r e ma ini ngiss ue s.Be cause former Chief J ustice L aw wa s orig in al l y assig ned to author this opinion, 12 authoringduties were rea ssigne d as of August 4, 2009. 13 CO NC LU SION Havingdeter

mined that appellants wa ived any err or by failing to pursue the e x clusive

re me dy of a pp e a l a s a uth or ize d in

the ta x co de , w e a ff

ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pemberton Chief J ustice L aw not par ticipating 12 Affir med Filed: September

9, 2009