### NUM BER 13-07- 666- 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 C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
GUS T. CA NA LES, AS INDEP ENDENT A ppell ant EXEC UT OR OF TH E ES TA TE OF GUS TA VO C A NA LE S, D ECE ASED
v . KLEBERG COUNTY A PPRA IS A L DISTRICT AN D K L E B E R G C O U N T YAP P RAI S AL REV IEW BOA RD , A pp ellees .

On ap pe al f rom th e 1 05t h Dist rict C ou rt of K leb erg Co un ty , T exas 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la Thi s i s a d ec l arat or

y j ud g me nta c ti on in a prop er ty t ax c as e. A pp el l an t, G us T.2

Cana les, as inde pen den t executor of t he Esta te of

Gusta v o Cana les, de cease d, ap pea ls from the tria l cour

t’ s o rd er g ra nti ng Kl eberg C ounty Apprais al Di str ic t ( appel lee or “ the Di str ic t” ) and Kl eberg C ounty Apprais al Rev iew Board’s (a ppel lee or “ the B oar d” ) moti on to dism iss for want of

jurisdiction. By tw o issues, app ellant conte nds th at th e district court
er re d i n g ra nti ng appel lee s’ moti on to dis mis s becau se appel lan t proper ly ex haust ed th e
a d m in is t r a t i ve p ro c e s s re qu ir e d b y t h e T e xa s T a x Co d e p ri o r t o se e k in g j u d ic ia l r e vie w, ther eby pr eser v ing the dis tr ic t c our

t’ s j ur is dic ti on to hear

the appeal

. W e aff ir m. I. Factual Bac kground Gus tav o C anal es ("G u stav o") di ed te sta te on D ecember 15, 1976. At the t ime of his deat h, C anale s o wned four tr act s o f land w hic h ar e the su bje ct of this appeal

. An appl ic ati on for pr obate of Gust avo’s will w as filed the same mont h as hi s d eath, and on Dec ember

27, 1976, his w il l w as admit ted t o probate. On D ecember

28, 2000, t h e Kl eberg C ounty Tit le Compan y

fil ed a copy

of Gusta v o’s w ill and proba te do cum ent s in the of f icial real estate records of the Kle berg Cou nty C our t in connec ti on w it h a separate, unr ela ted real estate tr ansac ti on. At that ti me, the p ro per

ty w as sti ll li ste d in the name of Gust av o’s es tate and w as re cei v ing ag ri cul tur al
use v alu ati on purs uant to s ect ion 23.5 1 of the Tex as TaxC ode. See T EX
. T A X C OD E A NN
. § 23 .51 (2) (Vernon 2 008 ). On March 31, 20 01, f o ll o win g the discovery of Gusta v o’s pr obated w il l on fil e, t he D is tr ic t c hang ed th e ow nershi p i n the tax re cords from the Est ate of Gust av o C anal es to B ebe C . J akl ey , M ar y C . J ar y and Gus T. Ca n a les , t he i ndi v idu al dev is ees named i n Gus tav o’s w il l. On A pr il 4, 2001, the Di str ic t notifie d the dev is ees that the a g ri cul tur al use v alu ati on
w as bei ng r emov ed, eff ect iv e Januar y 1, 2002. In the s ame noti ce, the Di str ic t ex pla ine d3

to t he dev is ees that they co uld protes t t he r emov al of the ag ri cul tur al use v alu ati on or the chang e i n the proper

ty l is ti ng v ia a formal protes t t o the Board. On J anuar y 1, 2002, the District rem oved the agri cultura l u s e valuat ion on the subject prop erty. T he District del iv er ed not ic e of the appr ais al v alu e to the dev is ees in June of 20 02, w hic h i ndi cat ed th e pr oper ty w as not recei v ing ag ri cul tur al use v alu ati on for tax y ear 2002. App ellant f irst filed a p ro t e s t i n 200 3. T he Bo ard he ard an d de nied app ellant ’s pr otes t of the Di str ic t’ s 2 003 app ra is al on J uly 9, 2003. On Aug ust

20, 2003, appel lan t fil ed a de clarato ry

judgmen t a c t io n c o m plainin g of the District’s incorrect listing of ow nersh ip and i ts re mov al of th e a gric u lt u ral use v alu ati on for the p ro per ty for t ax y ear 2002. O n Aug ust20, 2004, appel lan t amende d hi s p eti ti on to i ncl ude a si mil ar r eq uestfor reli ef for tax y ears 2003 and 2004. T he dist ri ct cour t g ra nted appel lee s’ moti on to di smi ss for w ant of jur is dic ti on. This appeal foll ow ed. II. St and ard o f Rev iew W hether a tr ial cour

t has subj ect matter jur is dic ti on is a q uest ion of law su bje ct to d e n o v o r e v i e w . Te x. Dep’ t of Par ks & Wildli fe v . M ir anda , 1 3 3 S

. W

. 3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 6 (T e x. 2004) ; T

e x . A & M U

n i v . , C o r p u s C h r i s t i v . Va nzante , 1 5 9 S

. W

. 3 d 7 9 1 , 7 9 4 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2005, n o pe t.)

. An ap pellat e cou rt is allowed to consid er evi den ce per ti nent to a jur is dic ti onal i nq uir y . Vanz

ante , 1 5 9 S. W .3 d at 79 4 (cit in g Cou nty of C am er on v . Br own , 80 S. W .3d 549 , 5 5 5 ( T e x. 2 002 )). If the evidence creates a fact q u e st io n r eg ar din g the jur is dic ti onal i ss ue, t he tr ial co urt mus t den y the ple a to the jur is dic ti on and submi t t he is su e to the factfinder

. Mi ra nda , 133 S.W .3d a t 227 -2 8. Con v ersel y , i f the ev ide nce is undi sput ed or fail s t o r ais e a factq uest ion on t he4

jur is dic ti onal iss ue, the tri al cour t shoul d rul e on the plea to the jur is dic ti on as a mat ter of law

. Id . at228. III. Legal Background T h e T e xa s Co n s t it u t io n e xp re s s ly p ro vid e s t h a tt h e legi slature may bes t o w e xc lu s ive
or ig ina l jur is dic ti on on admini strati v e bodi es. See T EX
. C ON ST
. art. V, § 8. T he legislature cl ear ly i ntended to bes tow

ex cl usi v e or ig ina l jur is dic ti on i n ad v alo re m tax matte rs on appr ais al re v iew

boards. Cam eron App raisal Dist. v. Rourk , 1 9 4 S

. W

. 3 d 5 0 1 , 5 0 2 (T e x. 2006)

. A proper

ty ow ner ’s fail ur e to pursue an apprais al re v iew board proceed ing depr iv es the d is tr ic t c our

t of j ur is dic ti on. Id . At axpayer cann ot be idle w hen conf ronte d w ith no tice
or a t ax bi ll thatthe tax pay er

bel iev es to be w ro ng
. Harris Coun ty App ra is a l Dis t. v. Pasa dena Pr

o p ., L.P ., 19 7 S.W .3d 402 , 406 (Tex. App. –Ea stland 200 6, pe t den ied). Other w is e, t he ta x

sc heme tha t t he ta x code pr ov ide s for pr otes ti ng and app eal ing ac ti ons tak en b y tax ing auth or it ies w oul d be subv erted. Id

. Beca use the t ax co de prov ide s detai led admi nis tr ati v e procedu re s for co ntes ti ng proper

ty tax es, “ a tax paye r’s f ail ur e to pursu e an app raisal rev iew boa rds procee ding dep riv es the co urts of jurisdiction.” Rourk , 194 S. W .3d a t 502

. T he first step the taxpayer mu st take in the adm inistrative proce ss is to file a no tice of prot estw it hin t h irt y d ay s o f the apprais al dis tr ic t’ s d eli v er y of noti ce of the apprais ed
v alu e. T EX
. T A X C ODE A NN . § 41.44 (V er non 200 8)

. The tax pay er m ustthen appear, eit her personal ly , by

r epr esent ati v e or

by aff ida v it , a t a protes t hea ri ng
. Id. § 41 .45; See also W ebb C ounty

Appr ais al Di st. v. New Lar

edo Hotel

, Inc. , 792 S.W .2d 952 , 955 (Tex. 1990 ). After the a ppr ais al re v iew board has is sued an or der based on t he precedi ng hear ing , t heFor exam pl e, t he a t t achm ent s f i l ed wi t h t he or i gi nal pet i t i on wer e t ax st at em ent s f r om 200 2. W hen 1 aski ng f or a cor r ect i on i n t he pr oper t y l i st i ng t o be m ade, appel l ant r ef er enced onl y t he 20 02 t ax rec ord s. A d d itio n a lly, in h is r e q u e s t c o n c e r n in g th e r e m o v a l o fth e a g r ic u ltu r a l u s e v a l u a t i o n , a p p e lla n t o n c e a g a in f ocu s ed s ol el y o n t ax y ear 200 2. I n f act , nowher e i n t he o r i gi nal pet i t i on d i d ap pel l ant seek r el i eff r om t he B o a rd ’ s 2 0 0 3 o rd e r o r re fe re n c e th e D i s tri c t’ s 2 0 0 3 va l u a ti o n
. 5 tax pay er has forty -fiv e day s to file a peti ti on pr otes ti ng the Board’s or der in dis tr ic t cour t or the tax pay er

l oses i ts ri g ht t o appea l for th at t ax y ear
. T EX
. T A X C ODE A NN
. § 42. 21 ( V e r n o n 2 0 08) ; Atas cos a C ounty Appr ais al Di st. v. T ym ra k , 8 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 3 3 5 , 3 3 7 (T e x. 1993) . T h e proce ss mustbe fol low ed for ev er y y ear the tax pay er

w is hes to c hal len g e a
v alu ati on bec ause the c omplet ion o f al l admini strati v e r eq uirements aff ect s o nly the appr ais ed v alu e of the pr oper ty for t hat p arti cul ar

tax y ear
. Ty

m ra k , 858 S.W .2d a t 337

. IV. T ax Y ears 2003 an d 2004 In respon se to ap pel lan t’ s first is sue, appel lee s ass ert that appell ant fai led to follo w all nec ess ar

y admi nis tr ati v e procedu re s t o appea l the 2 003 and 2004 tax ye ar v alu ati ons to t he di str ic t c our

t. W e ag re e. Turni ng f irs t t o tax y ear 2003, w e not e tha t app ell ant correctly f iled a prot est w ith the Board challen ging the listing of th e subject prope rties in thei r re spec ti v e names , rather than i n the es tate’ s n ame bec aus e t h e re h a d been no dis tr ibu ti on purs uant to sect ion 41.44 of the Tex as TaxC ode. See T EX
. T AX
. C OD E A NN
. at § 41 .44 . Th e Boa rd hea rd the protest and issued its orde r det ermin ing tha t the subject pr oper ti es w er e correct ly

lis ted i n the names of the d ev is ees as re q uired by se cti on 41. 45 of the tax code. See § 41 .45 . On August 20 , 200 3, ap pellan t f iled a pe tition f or declara tory
re li ef that w as filed w it hin the forty -fiv e day w ind ow r eq uired by

se cti on 42. 41 of the tax code. Id. a t § 42. 41. How ever, th e origi nal pe tition f ailed to comp lain ab out the Bo ard’s 2003 order , i nst ead focus ing on t ax y ear 2002. 16

Appel lan t onl y

so ug ht reli ef f ro m the 2003 order w hen he filed an a mended pet it ion on Aug ust20, 2 0 0 4

. H ow ev er , t his date w as more than a y ear after the Jul y 9, 2003, is suanc e of the Board’s order pertai nin g to the 2003 v alu ati on. As su ch, the peti ti on w as outs ide of the for

ty -fiv e day

w ind ow req uired bysecti on 42.41, a nd appe ll ant t hus faile d to
ex hausti ts admin is tr ati v e remedi es and preser v e i ts ri g ht t o appea l the o rd er
. Therefor e, the d is tr ic t c our

t c or re ctl y

di smi sse d a p p e ll ant’ s a ppeal of tax y ear 2003 for w ant o f jur is dic ti on. T he court also prop erly d ismissed a ppe llant’s pet ition for t ax y ear 200 4. Ev iden ce int ro duced i n the form of an a ff ida v itby Er nest ina F lores, the chi ef appr ais er of the Di str ic t, ind ic ates thatthe d e vise e s f ile d a protes t w it h the Board for tax y ear 2004 pursuantto
sec ti on 41. 44 of the tax co de. See i

d. § 41 .44. She av er re d tha t th e Board heard the pr ote st a n d i ss ued i ts or der dete rmi nin g the pr oper ti es w er e c or re ctl y

l is ted for

thaty ear
as re q uired by

se cti ons 41.45 and 42. 4 1 of the tax co de. See id . §§ 41.45, 42.4 1. How ev er , t he r ecord does not re flectthe date that the B oar d i ss ued i ts or der co ncer nin g tax y ear 2004. W it hout suc h proof, w e c annot say thatthe dis tr ic t c our

t er re d i n di smi ss ing the c lai m. V. Tax Y ear 2002 Appel lan t as ser

ts that iti s e n ti tl ed to j udi ci al re v iew of tax y ear 2002 becau se the est ate c ompli ed w it h the admi nis tr ati v e procedu re s o u tl in e d i n s ect ion 25.2 5 of the tax code. See i

d. § 25.25 (Ver non 2008). Und er secti on 25.25, the app ra is al re v iew board,
on m otion f rom a prope rty ow ner, m ay direct, by w ritten orde r, changes in the app raisal roll for any of

the f iv e prece ding y ears to c o rr e c t c le rical errors af fecting a prop erty owner’s7

lia bil it y for a tax

i mposed in that tax

y ear
. T EX
. T A X C OD E A NN
. § 2 5

. 2 5 ( c )( 1) ( Ver non 2008)

. If the proper

ty ow ner and chi ef apprais e r d o n o t a g re e on the c or re cti on s oug ht before t he 15t h day

after t h e d a te the moti on i s fil ed, t he proper ty ow ner i s e nti tl ed to a hear ing and a det er minat ion of the mot ion by the Board , w her e the par ty br ing ing the
mo tion “m ust d e s c ri b e t h e e rror or errors that th e mo tion is seekin g to correct. ” Id. § 25. 25(e ). W ithin forty- f iv e da y s of receiv ing notice of

the ap pra is a l re v iew

boa rd’s deter minat ion of a moti on unde r thi s s ect ion , ei ther the pr oper

ty ow ner o r th e c hie f appr ais er

m ay f il e suitto compel the Board to or der a c hang e i n the roll

. Id

. § 25. 25( g ). In t he i nst ant c ase, appel lan t di d notfil e a pr oper moti on before the a ppr ais al re v iew boa rd. Becau se no mot ion w as f iled w ith the Boa rd seeking correction of the ap praisal roll for ta x y ear 2002, no h ear ing c o u ld b e held; ther efore, ther e w as no det er minat ion of app ellant ’s m otion f rom w hich he could app eal. Ap pellan t has th us failed to timely ex hau st
a d m in is t ra t ive re m e d ie s u n d e r c h a p t e r 2 5 o f t h e t a x co d e fo r t a x ye a r 20 0 2

. A c c o rd in gl y,
w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s i ss ues. VI. Conclusion W e aff ir m the jud g ment of the dis tr ic t c our t.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 1 4th d ay

of Aug ust , 200 8.