1217914 

No. 01-15-00422-CV

______________________________________________ 

IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 

______________________________________________ 

Anheuser-Busch, L.L.C. 

Appellant 

v.

Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector 

Appellee 

___________________________________________ 

BRIEF OF APPELLANT 

___________________________________________ 

Ray Langenberg 

State Bar No. 11911200 

rlangenberg@scottdoug.com

Curtis Osterloh 

State Bar No. 24002714 

costerloh@scottdoug.com

Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP

303 Colorado, Suite 2400

Austin, Texas 78701 

(512) 495-6300 

(512) 495-6399 Fax 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00422-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/27/2015 7:56:00 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/27/2015 7:56:00 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Appellant’s Brief – Page 2

1217914

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Plaintiff-Appellant

Anheuser-Busch, L.L.C.

Counsel for Appellants

Ray Langenberg

State Bar No. 11911200

rlangenberg@scottdoug.com

Curtis Osterloh

State Bar No. 24002714

costerloh@scottdoug.com

Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP

303 Colorado, Suite 2400

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 495-6300

(512) 495-6399 Fax

Defendant-Appellee

Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector

Counsel for Defendant-Appellee

Keith Toler

Harris County Attorney’s Office

1019 Congress, 15th Floor

Houston, TX 77002

Telephone: (713) 755-5101 ext.

Fax: (713) 755-8924

keith.toler@cao.hctx.net
Appellant’s Brief – Page 3

1217914

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL.................................................................. 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................ 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE....................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................... 7

RECORD AND APPENDIX.......................................................................................... 7

ISSUE ON APPEAL....................................................................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................. 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................... 10

ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................ 12

A. No penalty and interest was due because Anheuser-Busch’s tax 

due date was extended by the Tax Assessor’s failure to mail tax 

notices to both Anheuser-Busch and its agent, as required by 

statute. ..................................................................................................... 12

1. The trial court’s order .................................................................. 12

2. The legislative history proves that “and” means “and.” .............. 12

3. The dual notice requirement was within the legislative 

prerogative. .................................................................................. 14

4. The trial court’s actual notice requirement produces 

unreasonable results that are inconsistent with the statute. ......... 14

5. The courts should defer to the wisdom of the Legislature. ......... 15

B. Response to Defendant’s Other Contentions.......................................... 18

1. Tax Code § 31.04 is related to Tax Code § 31.01. ...................... 18

2. Tax Code § 31.04 can be harmonized with Tax Code § 

31.01(g)........................................................................................ 18

3. Plaintiff did not waive its right to a refund.................................. 19
Appellant’s Brief – Page 4

1217914

4. The voluntary payment rule does not apply. ............................... 20

5. The Tax Assessor was required to send duplicate notices........... 21

6. Anheuser-Busch’s claim is not barred by sovereign 

immunity...................................................................................... 23

7. Anheuser-Busch is not seeking a waiver of penalties and 

interest.......................................................................................... 24

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER .................................................................................. 25

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE............................................................................ 27

APPENDIX................................................................................................................... 27
Appellant’s Brief – Page 5

1217914

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Aldine ISD v. Ogg, 122 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 

2003, no pet.)...................................................................................... 18, 19

Alex Sheshunoff Mgmt. Serv., L.P. v. Johnson, 209 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. 

2006)..........................................................................................................13

Bd. of Ins. Comm'rs of Tex. v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Tex., 180 S.W.2d 

906 (Tex. 1944) .........................................................................................14

Brennan v. City of Willow Park, 376 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 

2012, pet. denied) ............................................................................... 23, 24

City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009).................................23

Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864 

(Tex. 1999) ................................................................................................15

Highland Church of Christ v. Powell, 640 S.W.2d 235 (Tex. 1982)..................21

Hilco Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Midlothian Butane Gas Co., Inc., 111 S.W.3d 

75 (Tex. 2003) ...........................................................................................17

Mahoney v. Slaughter, No. 01-14-00471-CV (Tex. App. – Houston [1st

Dist., 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.).................................................................25

Syntax, Inc. v. Hall, 899 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. 1995)...............................................15

Tex. Educ. Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. 1994)................................23

Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 

2002)..........................................................................................................23

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston v. Gutierrez, 237 

S.W.3d 869 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied)..............16

Statutes

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101 .............................................................17

Tex. Gov't Code § 22.220 ......................................................................................7

Tex. Tax Code § 31.01.........................................................................................18

Tex. Tax Code § 31.01(a)....................................................................................11

Tex. Tax Code § 31.01(g)....................................................................................18

Tex. Tax Code § 31.02.........................................................................................18
Appellant’s Brief – Page 6

1217914

Tex. Tax Code § 31.04.........................................................................................18

Tex. Tax Code § 31.04(a)....................................................................... 11, 19, 25

Tex. Tax Code § 31.04(e)............................................................................. 11, 19

Tex. Tax Code § 33.011.......................................................................................24

Other Authorities

Act of May 20, 2005, 79th R.S., ch. 846, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 2888 ...............13
Appellant’s Brief – Page 7

1217914

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Case: Appellant/Plaintiff is seeking a refund of a protest 

payment of penalty and interest on a property tax 

assessment by Appellee/Defendant. 

Trial Court: 55th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas; 

Judge Jeff Shadwick presiding. 

Course of Proceedings: Anheuser-Busch filed a motion for summary judgment 

that the trial court denied. CR 15, 52. The Tax 

Assessor then filed a motion for summary judgment 

that the trial court granted. CR 60, 175. The trial 

court’s summary judgment order dismissed 

Anheuser’s claims with prejudice and constituted a 

final appealable judgment.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction of this appeal from a final judgment of a 

district court pursuant to Texas Government Code § 22.220. 

RECORD AND APPENDIX

There is no Reporter’s Record – this is a summary judgment case. The 

Original Clerk’s Record (“CR”) includes the documents requested in 

Appellant’s First Supplemental Request for Clerk’s Record. 

The Second Supplemental Clerk’s Record (“2CR”) contains an imaging 

error. The first page of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibit 2 -

Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Interrogatories 

and Production – appears at 2CR 8 and the first page is repeated on the 

following five pages. But the subsequent pages are omitted. To minimize any 

further delay, the document is attached as Appendix 3 in lieu resubmitting the 

document to the District Clerk under Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(e). 

Appellee’s counsel has no objection to this alternative procedure. Appellant will 

use the Rule 34.5(e) procedures if requested by the Court. 
Appellant’s Brief – Page 8

1217914

The Appendix to this brief includes the following items: 

App. 1 April 15, 2015 Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment and rendering take-nothing judgment for Defendant. CR 

175.

App. 2 Comptroller’s Property Tax Form 50-162 • 08-09/6

App. 3 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibit 2 – Defendant’s 

Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Interrogatories 

and Production

ISSUE ON APPEAL

The trial court erred in granting the Tax Assessor’s motion for summary 

judgment and denying Anheuser-Busch’s motion for summary judgment 

because:

1. The tax statute required the Tax Assessor to send tax notices to 

both Anheuser-Busch and its agent, and the undisputed failure of the Tax 

Assessor to send both tax notices extended Anheuser-Busch’s payment deadline 

so that Anheuser-Busch’s tax payment was timely and Anheuser-Busch was

entitled to a refund of penalty and interest paid under protest;

2. Actual notice of the amount of tax is insufficient; and

3. The Tax Assessor’s other contention are insufficient to support its 

motion or defeat Anheuser-Busch’s motion. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Anheuser-Busch owned seven properties in Harris County. 2CR 6

(Summary Judgment Affidavit of Jeffrey J. Comotto). According to the Tax 

Assessor’s discovery answers, the Tax Assessor mailed two tax statements to 

Anheuser-Busch in November 2012 and the remaining five tax statements to 

Anheuser-Busch’s agent, Duff & Phelps, also in November 2012. 2CR 8 and 
Appellant’s Brief – Page 9

1217914

Appendix 3 (Defendant’s Responses to Interrogatory 3 and Request for 

Admission 3).

There is a factual dispute as to whether the Tax Assessor mailed the tax 

statements to Duff & Phelps because Duff & Phelps claims that it never received 

the tax statements. 2CR 43 (Affidavit of Gregory Maxim). But if AnheuserBusch is correct that the Tax Assessor was required to mail the tax statements 

both to Anheuser-Busch and its agent, Duff & Phelps, then the factual dispute is 

immaterial. It is undisputed that the Tax Assessor did not mail the tax 

statements to both Anheuser-Busch and its authorized agent before 

January 10, 2013. The January 10 date for notice is significant because the

regular February 1 date for payment is postponed if the tax bills are mailed after 

January 10.

In the absence of a complete set of tax bills, Anheuser-Busch checked the 

Harris County Appraisal District Internet site as the best information available to 

make payment. CR 105 (Answer to Interrogatory 2). Using this information, 

Anheuser-Busch tendered a check for the $9,015,911.93 tax payment in January 

2013, but the bank dishonored the check due to security protocols. 2CR 8 and 

Appendix 3 (Answer to Request for Admission 1); CR 106 (Answer to 

Interrogatory 3). 
Appellant’s Brief – Page 10

1217914

After receiving a delinquent tax bill from the Harris County Tax 

Assessor-Collector for its properties in Harris County, Anheuser-Busch tendered 

$9,015,911.93 on February 27, 2013, which was the tax amount excluding the 

assessed penalty and interest. 2CR 7 (Affidavit of Jeffrey J. Comotto). 

Anheuser-Busch also included a $30.00 fee assessed because of the failure of its 

first check to clear the company’s bank. Id. The Tax Assessor continued to 

accrue interest on the alleged remaining deficiency, so Anheuser-Busch paid 

$631,114.08 on December 2, 2013 under protest and under duress in order to 

stop additional interest from accruing. Id. Anheuser-Busch then filed this 

lawsuit to recover the amount paid under protest. CR 4.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Anheuser-Busch is seeking a refund of penalty and interest on the alleged 

late property tax payment. Anheuser-Busch contends that its February 27, 2013 

tax payment was in fact timely because the deadline for payment was postponed 

by statute. 

The Texas Tax Code postpones the delinquency date for tax bills mailed 

after January 10:

Section 31.04. POSTPONEMENT OF DELINQUENCY DATE. 

(a) If a tax bill is mailed after January 10, the delinquency date 

provided by Section 31.02 of this code [February 1] is postponed to 

the first day of the next month that will provide a period of at least 

21 days after the date of mailing for payment of taxes before 
Appellant’s Brief – Page 11

1217914

delinquent unless the taxing unit has adopted the discounts 

provided by Section 31.05(c) of this code, in which case the 

delinquency date is determined by Subsection (d) of this section.

Tex. Tax Code § 31.04(a) (West 2015). Subsection (e) further provides:

(e) If the delinquency date for a tax is postponed under Subsection 

(a) or (a-1), that postponed delinquency date is the date on which 

penalties and interest begin to be incurred on the tax as provided by 

Section 33.01.

Id. § 31.04(e). 

With regard to timely mailing, the key statute to be interpreted in this case 

is Texas Tax Code § 31.01(a). That statute requires the tax assessor to mail the 

tax bill to the owner and to the owner’s agent:

(a) Except as provided by Subsections (f), (i-1), and (k), the 

assessor for each taxing unit shall prepare and mail a tax bill to 

each person in whose name the property is listed on the tax roll and

to the person's authorized agent.

Id. § 31.01(a) (emphasis added).

The Tax Assessor says that it mailed tax bills for some properties to 

Anheuser-Busch and tax bills for other properties to Anheuser-Busch’s

authorized agent, but the Tax Assessor concedes that it did not mail the tax bills

to both Anheuser-Busch and its authorized agent for each property prior to 

January 10, 2013. 2CR 8 and Appendix 3 (Response to Request for Admission 

3). Accordingly, Anheuser-Busch contends that the delinquency dates were 

postponed and Anheuser-Busch did not owe penalty and interest.
Appellant’s Brief – Page 12

1217914

ARGUMENT

A. No penalty and interest was due because Anheuser-Busch’s tax due 

date was extended by the Tax Assessor’s failure to mail tax notices to 

both Anheuser-Busch and its agent, as required by statute.

1. The trial court’s order

The trial court’s Order granting the Tax Assessor’s motion for summary 

judgment did not state a reason. CR 175. However, the trial court’s order 

denying Anheuser-Busch’s earlier motion for summary judgment stated:

The facts appear to be undisputed. The Defendant did not 

strictly comply with Section 31.01(a) of the Tax Code, but Plaintiff 

had actual notice of the tax, and attempted to pay it prior to the due 

date. Sections 312.005 and 312.006 of the Government Code direct 

this Court to diligently attempt to ascertain legislative intent, and to 

construe statutes to achieve that purpose. The Court ascertains that 

the purpose of the Tax Code provisions at issue is to make sure the 

taxpayer has notice, not to provide a loophole which allows the 

taxpayer to avoid timely payment.

CR 52. The trial court’s decision is wrong for the following reasons: 

 The legislative history proves that “and” means “and.”

 The dual notice requirement was within the legislative prerogative.

 The trial court’s actual notice requirement produces unreasonable results 

that are inconsistent with the statute.

 The courts should defer to the wisdom of the Legislature.

2. The legislative history proves that “and” means “and.”

“Ordinarily, the truest manifestation of what legislators intended is what 

lawmakers enacted, the literal text they voted on.” Alex Sheshunoff Mgmt. Serv., 
Appellant’s Brief – Page 13

1217914

L.P. v. Johnson, 209 S.W.3d 644, 651 (Tex. 2006). In 2005, the Texas 

Legislature amended Tax Code § 31.01(a) to replace “or” with “and”:

....

http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/sessionLaws/79-0/SB_898_CH_846.pdf, Act

of May 20, 2005, 79th R.S., ch. 846, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 2888. 2CR 45. 

Anheuser-Busch requests the Court to take judicial notice of this act. 

The word “or” can be exchanged for the word “and” only in extreme 

circumstances:

Ordinarily the words “and” and “or,” are in no sense 

interchangeable terms, but, on the contrary, are used in the structure 

of language for purposes entirely variant, the former being strictly 

of a conjunctive, the latter, of a disjunctive, nature. Nevertheless, in 

order to effectuate the intention of the parties to an instrument, a 

testator, or a legislature, as the case may be, the word “and” is 

sometimes construed to mean “or.” This construction, however, is 

never resorted to except for strong reasons and the words should 

never be so construed unless the context favors the conversion; as 

where it must be done in order to effectuate the manifest intention 

of the user; and where not to do so would render the meaning 

ambiguous, or result in an absurdity; or would be tantamount to a 

refusal to correct a mistake.
Appellant’s Brief – Page 14

1217914

Bd. of Ins. Comm'rs of Tex. v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Tex., 180 S.W.2d 906, 

908 (Tex. 1944). Here, there can be no doubt that the Legislature meant “and” 

because it amended the statute to use that word. Thus, there is a dual notice 

requirement – to the taxpayer and to the taxpayer’s authorized agent.

3. The dual notice requirement was within the legislative 

prerogative.

The dual notice requirement does not result in an absurdity. The 

consequences of a delinquent payment are severe. In this instance, AnheuserBusch suffered an additional liability of $631,114.08 for being a few days late. 

Given the severe consequences, it was certainly within the legislative 

prerogative to postpone the delinquency date if the taxing authority did not 

fulfill its mandatory duty to provide dual notice by mail to both the taxpayer and 

its agent.

4. The trial court’s actual notice requirement produces

unreasonable results that are inconsistent with the statute.

By contrast, the trial court’s actual notice requirement in lieu of mailed 

notice could produce unreasonable results that are inconsistent with the statute. 

Suppose an owner delegates the payment responsibility to its agent. An owner 

reading the plain words of the statute would have the right to assume that the 

Tax Assessor is obligated mail tax bills to both the owner and the agent. See

Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864, 866 (Tex. 
Appellant’s Brief – Page 15

1217914

1999) (“[O]rdinary citizens should be able to rely on the plain language of a 

statute to mean what it says.”). 

So, relying upon the plain meaning of the statute, the owner should have 

the right to assume that the agent will receive the tax bill and have sufficient 

information to pay the bill without further action by the owner. However, under 

the trial court’s interpretation, if the taxing authority fails to mail the bill to the 

agent but the owner has actual notice, the statutory requirement has been met 

and the tax is due without notice to the agent. To avoid potential delinquency, 

the owner would be compelled to forward all tax notices to its agent for 

payment. This obligation is inconsistent with the Legislature’s intent to allow 

an agent to transact business on behalf of an owner. 

5. The courts should defer to the wisdom of the Legislature.

The trial court’s order suggests that any requirement greater than actual 

notice would provide a “loophole which allows the taxpayer to avoid timely 

payment.” However, the Court is not free to substitute its wisdom for that of the 

Legislature. See Syntax, Inc. v. Hall, 899 S.W.2d 189, 192 (Tex. 1995) (“If the 

language as construed is merely unwise, the wisdom or expediency of law is the 

sole prerogative of the legislature.”). The Legislature chose to delay the 

delinquency date if the taxing authority did not mail the notices as required by 

the statute, and the Court is obligated to follow that choice.
Appellant’s Brief – Page 16

1217914

A parallel example of deference to legislative wisdom is this Court’s 

decision in University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston v. Gutierrez, 

237 S.W.3d 869 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). In that 

case, a statute required that expert reports be “served” on each defendant. Id. at 

871. The appellees urged that proof of compliance was “unnecessary” because 

the appellant “admitted receiving the expert report.” Id. at 872. The opinion 

held:

Here, appellees did not send the report at all. If we accept appellees' 

argument that actual receipt (from any source) of expert reports 

prior to suit's being filed, regardless of the manner in which those 

reports were furnished, meets the requirements of section 74.351, 

then we must completely disregard legislative intent as evidenced 

by the replacement of the word "furnish" with the word "serve."

Id. at 873. In the UT Health Science Center case, as in this case, the Legislature 

amended the statute to impose stricter conditions that some might consider 

unwise. But this Court followed the statute and dismissed the lawsuit even 

though the hospital had received a copy of the expert report that had not been 

“served” upon it. Here, some may consider it unwise to permit a taxpayer to 

delay payment of a known tax amount because the taxing authority did not mail 

the bill as required by the statute. But, like the decision in the UT Health 

Science Center case, this Court should follow the unambiguous requirements of 

the statute.
Appellant’s Brief – Page 17

1217914

Finally, if the Legislature had intended actual notice to be sufficient, it 

could have easily said so. See Hilco Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Midlothian Butane 

Gas Co., Inc., 111 S.W.3d 75, 81 (Tex. 2003) (“If, as the HILCO companies 

contend, the Legislature's objective was to allow electric cooperatives to engage 

in "any lawful purpose," the Legislature could have easily said so...”). An 

example of an actual notice requirement is in the Texas Tort Claims Act:

Sec. 101.101. NOTICE. 

(a) A governmental unit is entitled to receive notice of a claim 

against it under this chapter not later than six months after the day 

that the incident giving rise to the claim occurred. The notice must 

reasonably describe:

(1) the damage or injury claimed;

(2) the time and place of the incident; and

(3) the incident.

(b) A city's charter and ordinance provisions requiring notice 

within a charter period permitted by law are ratified and approved.

(c) The notice requirements provided or ratified and approved by 

Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply if the governmental unit has 

actual notice that death has occurred, that the claimant has received 

some injury, or that the claimant's property has been damaged.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101 (West 2011) (emphasis added).

For these reasons, the Court should rule that Anheuser Busch’s payment 

was timely because the delinquency date was postponed by the Tax Assessor’s 

failure to comply with the unambiguous dual notice requirement of the Tax 

Code.
Appellant’s Brief – Page 18

1217914

B. Response to Defendant’s Other Contentions

1. Tax Code § 31.04 is related to Tax Code § 31.01.

Defendant’s Motion at 9 (CR 68) claimed that “Tex. Tax Code Section 

31.04(a) has nothing to do with Tex. Tax Code Section 31.01(a).” However, 

since both sections deal with tax bills, they are related, and they must be 

construed together. See Aldine ISD v. Ogg, 122 S.W.3d 257, 270 (Tex. App. -

Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (“statutes bearing on the same subject matter 

should be construed together”). Section 31.01 requires dual tax bills be mailed 

by October 1. Section 31.02 then sets a February 1 delinquency date. Section 

31.04 then postpones the delinquency date if the tax bills are not mailed by 

January 10, as required by section 31.01.

2. Tax Code § 31.04 can be harmonized with Tax Code § 31.01(g).

Defendant’s Motion at 10 (CR 69) further contended that AnheuserBusch’s cause of action was defeated by Tax Code § 31.01(g), which provides:

(g) Except as provided by Subsection (f), failure to send or receive 

the tax bill required by this section, including a tax bill that has 

been requested to be sent by electronic means under Subsection (k), 

does not affect the validity of the tax, penalty, or interest, the due 

date, the existence of a tax lien, or any procedure instituted to 

collect a tax.

Tex. Tax Code § 31.01(g) (West 2008) (emphasis added). “[A]t first glance, 

subsection 31.01(g) appears to conflict with subsection 31.04(e).” AISD v. Ogg, 

122 S.W.3d at 270. Subsection 31.04(e) provides:
Appellant’s Brief – Page 19

1217914

(e) If the delinquency date for a tax is postponed under Subsection 

(a) or (a-1), that postponed delinquency date is the date on which 

penalties and interest begin to be incurred on the tax as provided by 

Section 33.01.

Tex. Tax Code § 31.04(e) (West 2008). However, “statutes bearing on the same 

subject matter should be construed together, and both given effect, if possible.” 

AISD v. Ogg, 122 S.W.3d at 270. Accordingly, this Court held:

We believe that these provisions can both be given effect by 

construing section 31.04 to apply in situations in which the taxing 

unit has the name and mailing address for the taxpayer, but either 

neglects to mail the tax bill or mails it late; however, section 31.04 

will not apply in instances in which the taxing unit cannot send the 

tax bill because it does not have the taxpayer's name or address.

Id. In this instance, it is undisputed that the Tax Assessor had the correct names 

and addresses, but failed to comply with the dual notice requirement. 

Accordingly, under section 31.04(a) and (e), the delinquency dates were 

postponed.

3. Plaintiff did not waive its right to a refund.

The Defendant’s Motion at 10-11 (CR 69-70) argued that waiver entails 

the “actual intent to relinquish the right or intentional conduct inconsistent with 

that right” and that Plaintiff’s failed attempt to pay the tax on January 28, 2013 

constituted a waiver of its right to timely pay at a later date. However, a prompt 

invalid payment attempt cannot reasonably be interpreted as an intention to 

relinquish the right to make valid, timely payment at a later date. Suppose after 
Appellant’s Brief – Page 20

1217914

the failed attempt on January 28, Anheuser-Busch made payment on January 29. 

Under the twisted reasoning of the Response, Anheuser-Busch would have 

waived its right to make timely payment at a later date and would owe penalty 

and interest even though the standard payment deadline without extension was 

January 31.

Perhaps if Anheuser-Busch had tendered tax, penalty, and interest, it 

would have exhibited conduct inconsistent with its right to make timely 

payment. But Anheuser-Busch only tendered the tax amount, demonstrating 

that it was not waiving its right to make timely payment. 2CR 7 (Summary 

Judgment Affidavit of Jeffrey J. Comotto). Anheuser-Busch did not pay penalty 

and interest until much later, and Anheuser-Busch made that payment under 

protest. Id.

4. The voluntary payment rule does not apply.

The Defendant’s Motion at 12 (CR 71) argued that when Anheuser-Busch

made its first attempt at payment in January 2013, it “attempted to make a 

voluntary payment to Harris County” even though the check was returned for 

insufficient funds. It is hard to understand how an action that was not even a 

payment could be a voluntary payment.

Furthermore, the purpose of the voluntary payment rule is that a “party 

should not be allowed to mislead his opponent into believing that the 
Appellant’s Brief – Page 21

1217914

controversy is over and then contest the payment and seek recovery.” Highland 

Church of Christ v. Powell, 640 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1982). Anheuser-Busch

failed to make a valid payment of only the tax amount in January 2013; it made 

a valid payment of only the tax amount only in February 2013; and it made a 

payment under protest of the penalty and interest amount in December 2013. 

2CR 7 (Summary Judgment Affidavit of Jeffrey J. Comotto). Under these facts, 

the Tax Assessor could not have been misled that Anheuser-Busch was 

conceding delinquency.

The Texas Supreme Court has also stated that “duress may be implied 

from a statute which merely imposes penalty and interest for failure to timely 

pay a tax.” Highland Church of Christ v. Powell, 640 S.W.2d at 237. 

Anheuser-Busch paid the disputed penalty and interest amount under duress to 

stop further penalty and interest from accruing further, and it explicitly 

designated the payment as being under protest. 2CR 7. There was no voluntary 

payment of penalty and interest.

5. The Tax Assessor was required to send duplicate notices.

The Defendant’s Motion at 12 (CR 71) asserted that the Tax Assessor was 

not required to send duplicate notices because the government’s appointment of 

agent form stated: 

NOTE: These notices can affect your legal rights. The affected 

officers are not required to send you duplicate copies.
Appellant’s Brief – Page 22

1217914

However, a governmental agency cannot be excused from the consequences of 

its failure to fulfill its statutory duty simply by issuing a statement denying that 

it has that statutory duty. 

The appointment of agent Form 50-162 signed by Anheuser-Busch

contained no language that constituted a waiver of its right to dual notice. 

CR 84.

1

 The Texas Comptroller, which is responsible for Form 50-162, 

apparently recognized the lack of waiver language in the version of the form 

signed by Anheuser-Busch. So the Comptroller subsequently replaced the 

language quoted by the Tax Assessor with the following language in the current 

form (emphasis added): 

I hereby direct, as indicated below, the appraisal district, appraisal 

review board, and each taxing unit participating in the appraisal 

district to deliver the documents checked below to the agent 

identified above regarding the property identified. I acknowledge 

that such documents will be delivered only to the agent at the 

agent’s address indicated above and will not be delivered to me 

unless the affected offices choose to send me copies or are 

otherwise required by law. I understand that these documents can 

affect my legal rights and that the appraisal district, appraisal 

review board, and the taxing units are not required to send me 

copies if I direct them to deliver the documents to my agent.

2CR 47. Anheuser-Busch requests the court to take judicial notice of the current 

Property Tax Form 50-162 • 09-13/10, which can be found on the Tax 

 

1 The copy of Anheuser Busch’s Form 50-162 in the Clerk’s Record is hard to read. Appendix 2 

contains a blank copy of the Property Tax Form 50-162 • 08-09/6 that Anheuser Busch signed.
Appellant’s Brief – Page 23

1217914

Assessor’s own Internet site at: http://www.hcad.org/forms/default.asp?form=9. 

If Anheuser-Busch had signed the current form, Anheuser-Busch might have 

waived its statutory right to dual notice. But Anheuser-Busch signed the prior 

version of the form that did not have waiver language.

6. Anheuser-Busch’s claim is not barred by sovereign immunity.

The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment at 13 (CR 72) asserted 

sovereign immunity. However, “when a governmental entity is a necessary 

party to a statutory cause of action, such as an action under the DJA for 

interpretation of a statute, sovereign immunity is expressly waived.” Brennan v. 

City of Willow Park, 376 S.W.3d 910, 922 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 2012, pet. 

denied), citing Tex. Educ. Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432, 445-46 (Tex.

1994).

The Defendant’s Motion countered that “[p]rivate parties cannot 

circumvent the State’s sovereign immunity from suit by characterizing a suit for 

money damages as a declaratory judgment claim.” CR 72. In support of this 

argument, the Defendant’s Motion cited City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 

284 S.W.3d 366, 371 (Tex. 2009) and Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n

v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 856 (Tex. 2002). CR 72. However, the opinion in 

Brennan v. City of Willow Park, after citing both Heinrich and IT-Davy (376 

SW.3d at 922), rejected this argument:
Appellant’s Brief – Page 24

1217914

Finally, both City of Willow Park and City of Aledo claim that the 

DJA does not waive their immunity from suit because they claim 

Appellants are seeking to "recover damages." Appellants do not 

seek "damages"; at most they seek a refund of the assessed back 

city taxes paid by some Appellants as a result of the allegedly void 

actions of Appellees or attributable to Appellees. Appellants 

pleaded that any Appellants "who made any full or partial payments 

of the illegal bills sent out by Larry Hammond did so under 

duress." Thus, because Appellants pleaded that illegal taxes were 

paid under duress, governmental immunity does not bar Appellants' 

claim for declaratory relief that also seeks the refund of illegally 

collected taxes.

Brennan, 376 S.W.3d at 925. This case is like the Brennan case in that 

Anheuser-Busch is seeking a refund of a payment under duress, and as such, 

Anheuser-Busch’s claim is not barred by sovereign immunity.

7. Anheuser-Busch is not seeking a waiver of penalties and 

interest.

Finally, the Defendant’s Motion at 15 (CR 74) asserts that AnheuserBusch is not entitled to a waiver of penalties and interest under Texas Tax Code 

§ 33.011. However, Anheuser-Busch is not seeking a waiver of penalty and 

interest; Anheuser-Busch contends that penalty and interest were not due. The 

Defendant’s argument simply assumes, and does not prove that Anheuser-Busch

owed penalties and interest. If Anheuser-Busch did not owe penalties and 

interest because the statutory deadline was extended, there were no penalties and 

interest to be waived.
Appellant’s Brief – Page 25

1217914

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

The Court should “review the summary judgment evidence presented by 

each party, determine all questions presented, and render the judgment that the 

trial court should have rendered.” Mahoney v. Slaughter, No. 01-14-00471-CV 

(Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist., 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.). If “a fact issue 

precludes summary judgment for either party, [the Court should] remand the 

cause for trial.” Id.

In this case, the Court should render declaratory judgment that Texas Tax 

Code § 31.04 postponed the February 1, 2013 due date because the Tax 

Assessor did not mail the tax bills to both Anheuser-Busch and AnheuserBusch’s designated agent before January 10, 2013; that $9,015,911.93 paid on 

February 27, 2013 was timely; that no penalty and interest was due on the timely 

amounts; and that Anheuser-Busch is entitled to a refund of $631,114.08 in 

penalty and interest charges that Anheuser-Busch paid under protest and under 

duress. 

In the alternative, if the Court rules that the statute does not require dual 

notice, the Court should remand to the trial court to determine the disputed issue 

of fact as to whether the Tax Assessor mailed notices to Anheuser-Busch’s 

agent.
Appellant’s Brief – Page 26

1217914

Respectfully submitted,

Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP

303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400

Austin, Texas 78701-2589

(512) 495-6300

(512) 495-6399 Fax

By /s/ Ray Langenberg 

Ray Langenberg

State Bar No. 11911200

rlangenberg@scottdoug.com

Curtis J. Osterloh

State Bar No. 24002714

costerloh@scottdoug.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 

ANHEUSER-BUSCH, L.L.C.
Appellant’s Brief – Page 27

1217914

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served on 

all counsel of record, as listed below, through the electronic filing system and 

e-mail on July 27, 2015:

Keith Toler

Harris County Attorney’s Office

1019 Congress, 15th Floor

Houston, TX 77002

keith.toler@cao.hctx.net

 /s/ Ray Langenberg 

Ray Langenberg

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that the foregoing instrument was prepared using Microsoft Word 

2010, and that, according to its word-count function, the sections of the 

foregoing pleading covered by TRAP 9.4(i)(1) contain 4,069 words. 

 /s/ Ray Langenberg 

Ray Langenberg

APPENDIX

App. 1 April 15, 2015 Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment and rendering take-nothing judgment for Defendant. CR 

175.

App. 2 Comptroller’s Property Tax Form 50-162 • 08-09/6

App. 3 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibit 2 – Defendant’s 

Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Interrogatories 

and Production
Appendix 1

For more information, visit our Web site: 

www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/proptax

The Property Tax Assistance Division at the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts provides property tax 

information and resources for taxpayers, local taxing entities, appraisal districts and appraisal review boards.

50-162 • 08-09/6

Appointment of Agent for Property Taxes

________________________________________________

Date received (appraisal district use only)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

Appraisal district name	 Appraisal district phone (area code and number)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Address

INSTRUCTIONS

You can use this form:

• To name a tax agent to represent you on property tax matters;

• To direct that tax notices be mailed to a person you name.

Read the instructions carefully. This form will be in effect until you file another form with the appraisal district that revokes it or until you file a form that

names a different agent.

STEP 1: Owner’s name and address

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Owner’s name

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Present mailing address (number and street)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

City, town or post office, state, ZIP code	 Phone (area code and number)

STEP 2: Describe the property

 All property listed for this owner at the above address

 The following property (give account number or legal description)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(continue on attached page if needed)

STEP 3: Specify the agent’s authority for property tax matters (skip to step 6 if you want to change tax notice mailing)

 General power to represent me in property tax matters concerning this property

 Specified powers: the agent has only the powers checked below

 file notices of protest and present protests before the appraisal review board

 receive confidential information

 negotiate and resolve disputed tax matters

 other action (specify) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

STEP 4: Name the agent for property tax matters

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Agent’s name

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Present mailing address (number and street)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

City, town or post office, state, ZIP code	 Phone (area code and number)

STEP 5: Date the agent’s authority ends

If you do not fill in a date, the agent’s authority will continue indefinitely. You must file a statement revoking

this form or designate a new agent to end the agent’s authority.	 ________________________________________________

Date

P r o p e r t y Ta x

Form 50-162

Appendix 2
P r o p e r t y T a x

Form 50-162 A p p o i n t m e n t o f A g e n t f o r P r o p e r t y Ta x

For more information, visit our Web site: www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/proptax

50-162 • 08-09/6 • Page 2

Complete steps 6-9 if you want tax notices mailed to an agent.

SKIP TO STEP 10 IF YOU DON’T WANT TO CHANGE TAX NOTICE MAILING.

STEP 6: Check if you want property tax notices delivered to an agent

	 I want my agent to receive all my property tax notices and other communication for this property, including appraisal notices, appraisal review board orders and hearing

notices, tax bills and collection notices.

	 I want my agent to receive only the following:

 All communications from the chief appraiser.

 All orders, notices and other communications from the ARB.

 All tax bills and notices from all taxing entities served by the appraisal district.

NOTE: These notices can affect your legal rights. The affected offices are not required by law to send you duplicate copies.

STEP 7: Describe the property for which property tax notices will be delivered

 The following property (give account number or legal description)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(continue on attached page if needed)

 My agent will provide a list

NOTE: the designation of an agent to receive communication only applies to properties you expressly identify and only affects notices generated after the date you file the list 

identifying the property with the appraisal district.

STEP 8: Name the person who will get the notices

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name of person or firm

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Present mailing address (number and street)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

City, town or post office, state, ZIP code	 Phone (area code and number)

STEP 9: Date the change of delivery ends

If you do not fill in a date, tax notices will continue to be mailed to your agent indefinitely. You must file a

statement revoking this form or designate a new agent to end the agent’s authority.	 ________________________________________________

Date

STEP 10: Sign the form

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________

Owner, property manager, or person authorized to act on behalf of the owner.	 Date the designation took effect

This form must be signed by the property owner; a property manager authorized to designate agents for the owner; or another person authorized to act on behalf of the owner

other than the person being designated as agent on this form. A property manager or other person should attach a copy of the document authorizing the person to designate

agents or act on behalf of the owner.

If you make a false statement on this form, you could be found guilty of a Class A misdemeanor or a state jail felony under Texas Penal Code Section 37.10.
Steve Smith 

NO. 2013-72388 

ANHEUSER-BUSCH, L.L.C. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 

V. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSORCOLLECTOR 55th JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

DEFENDANT HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR'S RESPONSES TO 

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, INTERROGATORIES AND 

PRODUCTION 

To: Plaintiff, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, L.L.C., by and through its attorney of record, Curtis J. 

Osterloh, SCOTT, DOUGLASS & McCONNICO, L.L.P., One American Center, 15th 

Floor, 600 Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701. 

COMES NOW, Defendant Harris County Tax-Assessor Collector and pursuant to the 

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, serves its Responses to Plaintiffs First Request for Admissions, 

Interrogatories and Request for Production heretofore propounded upon it in the above-entitled 

and numbered cause. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

VINCE RYAN 

HA IS CO TY ATTORNEY 

STEVE SMITH 

Assistant County Attorney 

State Bar No. 18684400 

1019 Congress, 15th Floor 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: (713) 274-5145 

Facsimile: (713) 755-8924 

ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR 

DEFENDANT HARRIS COUNTY 

TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on iP_~,~ , 2014 a true and correct copy of the above and 

foregoing document was mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested and/or sent by 

facsimile to all attorneys of record. 

Exhibit 2 Appendix 3
DEFENDANT HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR'S RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, INTERROGARORIES AND 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 

Request for Admission No. 1: 

On January 28, 2013, the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector received a property tax payment 

from Anheuser-Busch, L.L.C. in the amount of $9,015,911.93. 

Response: Admit that the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector received a check from 

Anheuser-Busch, L.L.C. in the amount of $9,015,911.93 on January 28, 2013 but deny that it 

received payment because the check was dishonored by the bank. 

Interrogatory No. 1: 

If the previous Request for Admission was not admitted without qualification, please explain the 

reason that it was not admitted without qualification. 

Response: The check the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector received was not "payment" 

for the taxes Anheuser-Busch, L.L.C. owed because the check was dishonored by the bank and 

did not pay for the taxes owed. 

Request for Admission No. 2: 

If the payment described in the previous Request for Admission had been honored by the bank, 

the property tax liability of Anheuser-Busch, L.L.C. to the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector 

would have been timely paid. 

Response: Admit that if the check described in the previous Request for Admission had been 

honored by the bank, the property tax liability of Anheuser-Busch, L.L.C. to the Harris County 

Tax Assessor-Collector would have been timely paid. 

Interrogatory No. 2: 

If the previous Request for Admission was not admitted without qualification, please explain the 

reason that it was not admitted without qualification. 

Response: The Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector did not receive payment from AnheuserBusch, L.L.C., only a check that was dishonored. 

Request for Production No. 3: 

Produce all 2012 tax bills (as that term is used in Texas Property Tax Code § 31.04) sent to 

Anheuser- Busch, L.L.C. or its agent. 

Response: Harris County does not have copies of the original tax bills. The tax bills attached 

are regenerated copies of the bills sent to Anheuser-Busch, L.L.C. or its agent. 
Interrogatory No. 3: 

State the dates and addresses to which the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector mailed 2012 

tax bills (as that term is used in Texas Property Tax Code § 31.04) for the following accounts: 

Account No. 2-2028682, 

Account No. 2-2144716, 

Account No. 121-756-001-0001, 

Account No. 121-756-002-0001, 

Account No. 121-756-002-0002, 

Account No. 121-756-003-0001, and 

Account No. 2-0049253. 

Response: 

Statements for account Numbers 2-2028682 and 2-2144716 were mailed during the period of 

Nov. 19-21, 2012 to Anheuser Busch, Inc., Corp. Tax Dept., Saint Louis, Mo. 63118-1849. 

Statements for accounts numbers 121-756-001-0001, 121-756-002-0001, 121-756-002-0002, 

121-756-003-0001, and 2-0049253 were mailed during the time period of Nov. 27-29 to Duff & 

Phelps, LLC, P.O. Box 2629, Addison, Texas 75001-2629. 

After the accounts were delinquent, statements for account numbers 2-2028682, 2-2144716, 121-

756-001-0001, 121-756-002-0001, 121-756-002-0002, 121-756-003-0001, and 2-0049253 were 

mailed during the time period of Feb. 8-10, 2013 to Anheuser Busch, Inc., c/o Corp. Tax Dept., 

P.O. Box 1860, Saint Louis, Mo. 63118-0860 and Anheuser Busch, 775 Gellhorn Dr., Houston, 

Texas 77029. 

Request for Production No. 4: 

Produce all Documents indicating that the tax bills were mailed to the addresses on the dates 

stated in answer to the previous interrogatory. 

Response: See the document attached to this response. 

Request for Production No. 5: 

Produce all Documents indicating that the tax bills were not or may not have been mailed to the 

addresses on the dates stated in answer to the previous interrogatory. 

Response: No items have been identified-after a diligent search-that are responsive to this 

request. 

Interrogatory No. 4: 

Identify any persons with personal knowledge that the tax bills were mailed to the addresses on 
the dates stated in answer to the previous interrogatory. 

Response: Donna Edwards 

Pam Buckelew 

Office of the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector 

1001 Preston, 1stFloor 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Interrogatory No. 5: 

Identify the person with the most knowledge about the procedures used by the Harris County 

Tax Assessor-Collector to mail the 2012 tax bills to Anheuser- Busch, L.L.C. and its agent. 

Response: An objection is made to this interrogatory as assuming facts not in evidence, 

ambiguous, and calling for speculation. 

Request for Production No. 6: 

Produce all Documents related to an evaluation, study or audit of the mailing of tax bills by the 

Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector or its designated agent. 

Response: No items have been identified-after a diligent search-that are responsive to this 

request. 

Request for Production No. 7: 

Produce all Documents indicating tax bills were not mailed or not mailed in a timely manner by 

the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector or its designated agent. 

Response: No items have been identified-after a diligent search-that are responsive to this 

request. 

Request for Admission No. 1: 

Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector or its designated agent has failed to timely mail tax bills 

to Harris County real estate owners. 

Response: Deny 

Interrogatory No. 6: 

If the previous Request for Admission was not admitted without qualification, please explain the 
reason that it was not admitted without qualification. 

Response: The admission was denied because it is not a true statement. 

Interrogatory No. 7: 

Identify all late payments penalties waived by the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector from 

the years 2011 through 2013. 

Response: An objection is made to this interrogatory as asking a question that is not relevant, is 

overly broad and burdensome, and harassing. 

Request for Production No. 8: 

Produce all Documents related to a contract with a third party to mail tax notices on behalf of the 

Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector. 

Response: See the documents attached to this Response to Request for Production. 

Request for Admission No. 2: 

Anheuser-Busch L.L.C. properly appointed Duff & Phelps, LLC as its agent to receive 2012 tax 

notices for all property within Harris County. 

Response: An objection is made to the request for admission because it asks the party to admit 

a proposition of law, calls for speculation, and is ambiguous. 

Interrogatory No. 8: 

If the previous Request for Admission was not admitted without qualification, please explain the 

reason that it was not admitted without qualification. 

Response: See the objections made to the admission. 

Request for Production No. 9: 

Produce all Anheuser- Busch, L.L.C. appointments of agent for tax notices for 2012 property tax 

bills. 

Response: See the documents attached to this Response to Request for Production. 

Request for Admission No. 3: 

If a taxpayer appoints an agent, the usual procedure of the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector 

is to address the tax notice to the agent. 

Response: Admit that if a taxpayer appoints an agent which is shown on the rolls of the Harris 
County Appraisal District rolls, the usual procedure of the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector 

is to address the envelope containing the tax notice (the tax statement) to the agent, but deny that 

the tax notice (the tax statement) itself is addressed to the agent. 

Interrogatory No. 9: 

If the previous Request for Admission was not admitted without qualification, please explain the 

reason that it was not admitted without qualification 

Response: Non-applicable. 

Request for Admission No. 3: 

The Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector did not address and mail the tax notices for the 

following accounts to both Anheuser Busch LLC and Duff & Phelps 

Account No. 2-2028682, 

Account No. 2-2144716 

Account No. 121-756-001-0001, 

Account No. 121-756-002-0001, 

Account No. 121-756-002-0002, 

Account No. 121-756-003-0001, and 

Account No. 2-0049253. 

Response: Admit that tax notices (tax statements) for Account No. 2-2028682 and Account No. 

2-2144716 were addressed and mailed to Anheuser Busch LLC but not Duff & Phelps, and admit 

that tax notices (tax statements) for Account No. 121-756-001-0001, Account No. 121-756-002-

0001, Account No. 121-756-002-0002, Account No. 121-756-003-0001, and 2-0049253 were 

addressed and mailed to Duff & Phelps but not Anheuser Busch LLC. 

Admit that tax notices (tax statements) for account numbers 2-2028682, 2-2144716, 121-756-

001-0001, 121-756-002-0001, 121-756-002-0002, 121-756-003-0001, and 2-0049253 that were 

mailed in February 2013, were mailed only to Anheuser Busch LLC, and not Duff & Phelps. 

Interrogatory No. 10: 

If the previous Request for Admission was not admitted without qualification, please explain the 

reason that it was not admitted without qualification 

Response: Not applicable. 

Request for Production No. 10: 

Produce all Documents describing the procedures used by the Harris County Tax AssessorCollector to properly address and mail tax notices 

Response: The Texas Tax Code Annotated. Objection is made to producing this document 

because it is equally available to Plaintiff as it is to Defendant and is a public document. 
Interrogatory No. 11: 

Identify your trial witnesses, as required by Rule 192.3(d), and briefly state their connection with 

the case. 

Response: All persons listed as having knowledge of relevant facts and all expert witnesses 

shown in both parties Responses to Request for Disclosure, and who are incorporated by 

reference into this answer. 

Request for Production No. 11: 

Produce the documents required by Request for Disclosures f(3) and f(4). 

Response: An objection is made to this request as these documents, if available, have already 

been provided in the Defendant's Response to Request for Disclosure and this request duplicates 

that response, and further objection is made that this Request for Production is an impermissible 

Request for Production pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 195.1. 

Request for Production No. 12: 

Produce the documents required by Request for Disclosure (1). 

Response: This request is impermissible because no documents are required to be produced 

under Request for Disclosure (1) and the Defendant is not required to create a new document in 

response to a request for production. 

Request for Production No. 13: 

Produce all Documents relied on in answering Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions, 

Interrogatories and Request for production and not produced in response to any of the previous 

requests for production of documents. 

Response: An objection is made to this request as being overly broad, harassing, not relevant 

overly burdensome, and requests documents not required to be produced under the Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Further objection is made that the request violates the attorney work product rule. 
THE STATE OF TEXAS 

COUNTY OF HARRIS 

BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared Elizabeth Doss, 

who being by me duly sworn on his oath deposed and said that, 

"I have read the above and foregoing Defendant's Answers to Plaintiffs 

First Set of Interrogatories and the statements contained therein are within my 

personal knowledge and are true and correct, except for answers numbers 3 and 

11, which are based on information obtained from o2 -r • -rsons. 

Eliza OSS 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON this 2 S day of 

2014, to certify which I affix my hand and seal of office. 

.6FY4:1, MELISSA L. JEFFERS 

1**1 Notary Public, State of Texas 

Si, 44 My Commission Expires 

March 05, 2016 

Notary '=nd for