i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 59 5- CV BEXAR AP P RAISAL DISTRICT ,

Appellant
v . OMNI LA MAN SION CORPORA TION and Omni Hotels Corporation, Appellee s Fr om the 57th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CI -14634 Honora ble J oe F razier B rown, Jr., J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Sitt ing: Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Dec ember 23, 2008 AFF I RMED This appea l arises from a lawsuit in which Omni L a Mansion Corporation sought re view of the B e xar Ap pr a isa l D istri c t’ s a d v a lor e m tax va luatio n o f p ro pe rt y it o wn e d. Th e Di str ic t a

pp e a ls the trial cour

t’s order denying its plea

to the jurisdiction and its mot ion to strike Omni L a Mansion Corporation’s third ame nded petition. We affir m the order

of the trial c ourt.04
- 08
- 00 59 5- CV

- 2- F A C TUA L B ACKG ROUND Omni L a Mansion Corporation filed a sui t ag ainst Be x ar A ppraisal District c halleng ing the District’s ad v alore m tax valuation of prope rty it owned. Omni L a Mansion Corporation subsequently

filed a se cond am en ded petition that substitut ed Omni Hotels Corporation as the plaintiff. The D istrict then filed a ple a to the jurisdiction ass er t i n g t h at Omni Hotels Corporation lacke d standing beca

use there was no e vidence that it owned the pro p er t y in question or had exhausted its adminis trative re medies prior to f iling the suit. Prior to the hear ing on the plea to the jurisdiction, Omni L a Mansion Corporation filed a third amended petition re-substituting itself a s the pl aintiff. At the hearing , the Dis trict moved to strike the third ame nded plea ding. T he trial c ourt denied both the District’ s plea to the jurisdiction and the motion to strike. S TA N D A R D O F REVIEW Standing is a pr ere quisite to subjec t matter jurisdiction, a nd a trial c ourt must have subjec t matter jurisdiction to decide a ca se. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 3 4 S. W. 3 d 5 4 7 , 5 5 3
- 5 4 ( T e x. 2001). Subject matter jurisdiction may be cha lleng ed by

a plea to the jurisdiction. Id. A trial cour t deter mines a plea

to the jurisdiction by

revie wing the pleading s in the plaintiff’s f avor a nd examining the pleade r’s intent. Id.; Tex . Dep’ t of Parks & W ildlif e v. M iranda , 1 3 3 S
. W
. 3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 6 ( T e x. 2004). “I f the pleading s do not contain sufficie nt fac ts to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’ s jurisdiction but do not affirmatively demonstrate inc urable defe cts in jurisdiction, the issue is one of plea ding suf

ficienc y and the plaintiffs should be afforde d the opportuni ty to amend.” Miranda , 133 S.W .3d at 226-27. On the other ha nd, “[i] f the plea dings a ffirmatively neg ate the e x istence of jurisdiction, then a plea to the jur isdiction m ay b e gra n ted without allowing the plaintiff an04
- 08
- 00 59 5- CV

- 3- opportunity to amend.” Id . at 227. We revie w a tria l court’s rulingon a plea to the jurisdiction de
novo. See id. at 226. D I S CUS S I ON I n its first issue, the District argues that the trial co u rt lacke d subject matter jur isdiction beca use the sec ond amende d petition named Omni Hotels Cor p o r a ti o n a s the only

plaintiff, but Omni Ho te ls C or

po ratio n la c ke d s tand ingsin c e it d id n ot o wn the pr op e rt

y a t is su e and

fa ile d to e xha

us t its administ rative r emedies. I n order to sue or obtain relief from an a ppraisal r eview boa

rd’s de cision, the Texas Tax C ode require s the pl aintiff to be the owner of t he property in dispute, a proper ly desig nated a g ent of the
owner , or the lesse e of the proper ty under c erta in circumstanc es. T EX . T AX C ODE ANN . §§ 1.111, 41.413(b), § 42.01, § 42.21(b) ( Ver non 2008). “ A p e rs on

or e nti ty wh o d oe s n ot me e t on e of the se criter ia, but nonetheless s e e k s ju d ic ia l r e v ie w o f a n a p praisal- revie w boar d deter mination, has neither a ‘le g al rig ht’ to enfor ce, nor any ‘r ea l controver sy ’ at issue, a nd there fore , no standing under the Code.” Kol l Br e n Fu nd VI , LP v . H arris Cou nty

Ap prais al D ist
. , N o . 0 1
- 0 7
- 0 0 3 2 1
- CV , 2 0 0 8 WL 525799, at *3 (Te x . App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Fe b. 28, 2008, pet. denied)
. Although a

party has onl y forty -five day s to file a pe tition for reviewchalleng ing a n appra isal revie w boar d’s dec ision, section 42.21(e) of the Code allows a p arty to subsequently

amend a petition to correc t or chang e the name of a party afte r t he forty -five day deadline. T EX . T AX C ODE ANN . § 42.21(a) , (e ) ( Ve rn on 20 08 ). Se c tio n 4 2. 21 (e ) p ro vid e s: A petition that is timely filed under Subsection (a) or amende d under S u b s ec t i o n(c ) m ay

b e s u b s eq u en t l y am en d ed t o (1 ) co rr ec t o r c h an ge the name of a pa

rt y ; or (2 ) n ot l a te r t

ha n th e 12 0th

da y be fo re the date of trial, identify

or desc ribe the pr operty

orig inally

involv ed i n the a pp e a l.04
- 08
- 00 59 5- CV

1 ... T he re c o rd ref

l ect s i t i s und i sput ed t hat O m ni La M ansi o n C o rpo rat i o n did exhaust i t s ad m i ni st rat i ve re m e d ie s, w h e re a s O m n i H o te ls C o rp o ra tio n d id no t ex h a u st it s a d m inistra tive re m e d ie s.

- 4- T EX . T AX C ODE ANN . § 42.21(e) (Ve rnon 2008). I n this case, the pr operty

owner , Omni L a Mansion Corporation, tim ely filed its pe tition for revie w under section 42.21(a). Although the second a mended pe tition create d a jurisdictional def ect by chang ing the plaintiff’s name to Omni Hotels Corporation, the def ect wa s cu red by

the third amende d petition which was permitted under section 42.21(e ). See T EX . T AX C ODE ANN . § 42.21(e) (V e rn on 20 08 ); Ha mi lto n Co un ty Ap prais al D ist . v . S

tua rd , No. 10
- 0 2
- 0 0 3 2 9
- CV , 2 0 0 4 WL 15 74 58 7, a t *2 (T e x. Ap p. —Wa c o July 7, 20 04 , n o p e t.) (d isc us si ng th e leg isl a tur e ’s int e nt i n
e na c tin g su

bs e c tio n (e ) to dis pe ns e wi th ha rs h dis mis sa ls re qu ir e d p ri or to t he ame ndme nt) ; se e als o Miranda , 1 33 S.W. 3d

a t 22 6- 27 (g ivi ngpla int if fs op po rt un ity to ame nd cura

ble de fe c ts i n jurisdiction). The District re lies on Koll Bren to support its arg umen t t h at the sec ond amende d petition deprive d the trial c o u rt o f j u ri sdiction. I n Koll Bren , the Houston Court of Appea ls affirme d the dismiss al of a

n ad valor em tax valuation ca se for lack of jurisdiction despite the plaintiff’s attempt to use section 42.21(e ) to cha ng e the plaintiff’ s name t o a prope r par ty with standing. Koll Bren , 2008 WL 525799, at *1. Unlike the instant case, how ever , the trial cour t in Koll Bren ne ve r i nit ia lly acquir ed subjec t matter jurisdiction beca use the orig inal plaintiff, who wa s not the curr ent owner of the property , lacke d standing
. Id
. at *3-4. I n this case, Omni L a Mansion Corporation’s timely filing of a pe tition for reviewconfe rre d jurisdiction on the trial court since Omni L a Mansion C orporation
ow ne d th e pr op e rt

y and had ex hauste d it s a dmi nis tr a tiv e re me die s. 1 See T EX . T AX C ODE ANN . §§ 42.01, 42.21(b) ( Ver

non 2008).04
- 08
- 00 59 5- CV

- 5- I n its second issue, the District ar g ues the trial c ourt err ed in deny ing the District’s motion to s tr ik e b e c a

u s e th e tr ia l c o u rt w a s w it h o u t j u r is d ic ti o nto g r an t l e av e to ame n d th e p e ti ti o n . We disag ree . When the pleading s aff irmatively

demonstrate c urable defe cts in jurisdiction, then a plaintiff should be aff

orded the opportunity to a mend. Miranda , 133 S.W .3d at 226-27. He re, the second a mended pe tition contained a curable jurisdictional defec t, which was c orre cted by chang ing the plaintif

f’ s n ame from Omni Hotels Corporation to Omni L a Mansion Corporation in the third amende d petition. SeeT EX . T AX C ODE ANN . § 42.21(e) (Ve rnon 2008). Acc ording ly , we c onclude the tr ia l c ourt

pr op e rl y a ff or de d O mni L a

Mans ion Cor po rati on th e op po rt

un ity to c ur e its jurisdictional defe ct, and a s a re sult, the District’s sec ond appellate issue is overrule d. See M iranda , 133 S.W .3d at 226-27 . C ONCL US I ON Be cause the trial cour

t did not err in deny

ing the District’s plea to the jur isdiction or motion to strike, we a ffirm the or der of the trial cour

t.

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice