Source: https://www.gpd.com/practice-areas/ad-valorem-property-tax/property-tax-case-law/
Timestamp: 2020-01-27 11:55:46
Document Index: 317833796

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 11', '§ 25', '§ 42', '§ 25', '§ 25', '§ 42', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 552', '§ 11', '§ 23', '§ 21', '§ 23', '§ 21', '§ 23', '§ 21', '§ 42']

2019 Texas Property Tax Law Changes – A section by section analysis
This official publication from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Property Tax Assistance Division summarizes the property tax legislation enacted in 2019 by the 86th Texas Legislature.
Lower Colo. River Auth. v. Burnet Cent. Appraisal Dist., No. 03-15-00724-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 5982 (Tex. App.—Austin June 7, 2016, no pet. h.)
RV park owned by a governmental entity but leased to a private entity for uses limited to public purposes was exempt from taxation under Texas constitution and Texas Property Tax Code § 11.11.
City of Aledo v. Smith, et al, No. 02-14-00147-CV and No. 02-14-00153-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 5930 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 2, 2016, no pet. h.)
Class certification for all property owners was inappropriate in a suit for back taxes because individualized inquiry was required into whether each owner’s payment of back taxes was voluntary or made under protest. Texas Property Tax Code § 25.21 only provides a remedy for omitted property, not omitted taxing units.
Sebastian Cotton & Grain, Ltd. v. Willacy Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 13-14-00574-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 4376 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Apr. 28, 2016, no pet. h.)
Texas Property Tax Code § 42.23(a) prescription that an appeal to district court is by trial de novo did not prohibit appraisal district from raising an issue of fraud for the first time at the district court level. Appraisal district could not use Texas Property Tax Code § 25.25(b) to shift tax liability from one taxpayer to another. The prevailing property owner in the § 25.25 dispute was entitled to a mandatory attorney fee award under § 42.29.
Haider v. Jefferson Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 09-14-00311-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 3936 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 14, 2016, no pet. h.)
Whether an agreement by a property owner owning mineral interests outside a county to pool those interests with a larger gas unit predominantly located inside the county results in ownership of property inside the county would be dictated by the language of the leases signed by the property owners.
Cohen v. Midtown Mgmt. Dist., No. 01-14-00914-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 2410 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 8, 2016, no pet.)
The correction of a delinquent tax judgment nunc pro tunc to list a taxing jurisdiction on the first page was a valid change due to a clerical error where the judgment had already provided an award for that taxing jurisdiction. In contrast, the attempted nunc pro tunc correction adding a previously unmentioned taxing jurisdiction and changing the value awards to several taxing jurisdictions was an improper change to a judicial error that was not supported by the record.
Kirkwood v. Jefferson Cnty., et al, No. 09-15-00296-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 1450 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 11, 2016, no pet.)
An owner had standing to challenge a tax sale of his property after a default delinquent tax judgment was taken against the prior owner where the taxing jurisdictions had reason to know of his ownership but notice of the sale was provided only to the prior owner. Governmental immunity did not bar the owner’s claims for equitable relief for violation of the owner’s due process rights.
HDSA Westfield Lake, LLC, et al v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 14-15-00180-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 1439 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 11, 2016, no pet.)
A property does not forfeit its Texas Property Tax Code § 11.182 community housing development organization (“CHDO”) exemption due to change of ownership if the property is sold in foreclosure and the new owner submits evidence of its CHDO status within 30 days of sale, even if the property is first passed through a special purpose entity that is not a CHDO.
Cameron Cnty. Appraisal Dist., et al v. Rourk, et al, No. 13-15-00026-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 834 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 28, 2016, no pet.)
Chief appraiser and district appraiser were protected from suit by governmental immunity where lawsuit complained of their interpretation of an exemption provision in the Texas Property Tax Code. The interpretation of the Code was an exercise of discretion, not a purely ministerial act which would fit within the ultra vires exception to governmental immunity.
Jack Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Jack Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 484 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, no pet.)
Property leased for public use by a political subdivision of the state qualifies for the Texas Property Tax Code § 11.11(h) exemption, even if the lease does not provide a fixed sale price or credit lease payments toward the sale price.
Barbaria v. City of Southlake, No. 02-14-00068-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 454 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 14, 2016, pet. filed)
Expert witness in condemnation case was permitted to testify as to the market value of the property as of the date of taking even though the expert’s only produced report provided an opinion of value as of a date three months prior to the date of taking. Because the expert testified that the opinions in the report were still applicable as of the date of taking and there were no significant changes in the market, the court concluded the previously disclosed opinions were not misleading or incorrect.
Silberstein v. Trustmark Nat’l Bank, No. 14-14-00660-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 108 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 7, 2016, pet. denied)
Sales comparison approach did not provide probative evidence where the sales utilized were foreclosure sales and no adjustments were made to account for the nature of the transactions. Income approach did provide competent evidence because the properties were utilized for income generation.
Hydrogeo, LLC v. Quitman Indep. Sch. Dist., et al, No. 06-15-00007-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 20 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 6, 2016, no pet.)
Updated tax statement not previously produced in discovery was properly admitted over objection of property owner in delinquent tax trial. Because pleadings and discovery responses made clear that taxing districts were seeking all taxes due on the property and property owner admitted it was the current owner, there was no unfair surprise.
Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Integrity Title Co., LLC, 483 S.W.3d 62 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. filed)
Where a governmental body withholds information sought in a Public Information Act request pursuant to an attorney general opinion, the requesting party can still file a writ of mandamus to district court because, otherwise, the attorney general’s opinion would be unreviewable. Publicly available information collected for a governmental body by a private entity is not protected from disclosure under the MLS exception, Texas Government Code § 552.149.
NHH-Canal St. Apts., Inc. v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 14-14-00251-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 11890 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 19, 2015, no pet.)
A charitable organization providing housing and other services to impoverished persons qualified for a property tax exemption under Texas Property Tax Code § 11.18(d)(2) and (d)(3) even though it screened applicants to ensure their ability to pay the reduced rent charged. The phrase “without regard to beneficiaries’ ability to pay” applies only to charitable organizations serving victims of natural disaster and not to charitable organizations serving the impoverished.
Estate of Smith v. Ector Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 480 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015, pet. filed)
Property owner, as party seeking affirmative relief, has the burden of proof on its claim that its property is not appraised uniformly and equally.
Stiefer v. Moers, No. 14-14-00617-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 11609 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 10, 2015, pet. denied)
Because property owners bringing a declaratory judgment action concerning the denial of their open space land appraisal ultimately sought a change in their tax assessment, the Property Tax Code provided their exclusive remedies. Chief appraiser was protected from suit by governmental immunity because suit complained of his exercise of discretion in interpreting the Tax Code and determining the open space application, not a purely ministerial act which would fit within the ultra vires exception to governmental immunity.
MidCon Compression, L.L.C. v. Reeves Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 478 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, pet. filed)
Amendments to Texas Property Tax Code §§ 23.1241 and 23.1242, providing for the valuation of heavy equipment inventory for lease without a purchase option based on lease payments for the previous year divided by twelve, were constitutional. Situs for leased heavy equipment inventory is in the county where the leased property is operating as of January 1, not the county where the owner maintains its business location, because the amendments did not modify the general rule regarding taxable situs found in § 21.02(a).
EXLP Leasing, LLC v. Ward Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 476 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, pet. filed)
Natural gas pipeline compressor packages that regulate the pressure for extraction and transfer of natural gas qualify as heavy equipment inventory as that term is used in Texas Property Tax Code §§ 23.1241 and 23.1242. Amendments to those sections, which provide for the valuation of heavy equipment inventory for lease without a purchase option based on lease payments for the previous year divided by twelve, were constitutional. Situs for leased heavy equipment inventory is in the county where the leased property is operating as of January 1, not the county where the owner maintains its business location, because the amendments did not modify the general rule regarding taxable situs found in § 21.02(a).
EXLP Leasing LLC v. Loving Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 478 S.W.3d 790 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, pet. filed)
Valerus Compression Servs. v. Reeves Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 478 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, pet. filed)
Allen v. Smith Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 12-15-00029-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 9359 (Tex. App.—Tyler Sept. 2, 2015, no pet.)
Court of appeals upheld trial court judgment that property owner’s suit was barred by the statute of limitations where the owner timely filed the lawsuit in district court within 60 days of receiving an ARB order but did not request service or pay the fee for service until five months after the petition was filed and 3 ½ months after the statute of limitations passed.
EXLP Leasing, LLC v. Galveston Cent. Appraisal Dist., 475 S.W.3d 421 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. filed)
Because neither party produced sufficient summary judgment evidence for the court to determine whether valuation of heavy equipment inventory held for lease without a purchase option under amendments to Texas Property Tax Code §§ 23.1241 and 23.1242 was based on reasonable market value, the court of appeals refused to rule on the constitutionality of those amendments. The court did confirm that situs for leased heavy equipment inventory is in the county where the leased property is operating as of January 1, not the county where the owner maintains its business location, because the amendments did not modify the general rule regarding taxable situs found in § 21.02(a).
Heritage Operating, L.P. v. Barber Hill Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 14-14-00187-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6785 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 2, 2015, no pet.)
Property owner’s defense in a delinquent tax suit that it was not afforded due process because it did not receive a notice of appraisal was rejected where the property owner had received a tax bill and could have followed the administrative procedures for challenging valuation and notice. Such procedures are exclusive and must be exhausted before judicial review is sought or before lack of notice is raised as a defense in a delinquent tax suit.
Moers v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 469 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied)
The Texas Legislature delegated the authority to develop eligibility standards to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, who has in turn delegated to chief appraisers the determination of what the required land use and degree of intensity standards should be for qualifying land. Chief appraiser was protected from suit by governmental immunity because suit complained of his exercise of discretion in interpreting the Tax Code and determining the open space application.
AETC II Privatized Hous., LLC v. Tom Green Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 03-13-00463-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6357 (Tex. App.—Austin June 24, 2015, no pet.)
Improvements owned by a limited liability company on federally-owned land were still subject to state property taxation because, notwithstanding of the significant capital contribution by the United States and the United States’ 49% interest in the LLC, the LLC did not establish that the United States had the present right to compel title to the improvements.
Gonzales v. Dallas Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 05-13-01658-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6325 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 23, 2015, no pet.)
Sole shareholder could not properly challenge the appraisal of property owned by a corporation where the pleading incorrectly stated that the sole shareholder was the owner of the property and did not contain the requisite allegations for a derivative claim.
Smith v. City of Wichita Falls, No. 02-14-00183-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 5716 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 4, 2015, no pet.)
Where taxing entities in a delinquent tax case introduce a certified copy of the tax statement and a certified copy of the warranty deed showing ownership, they have presented a prima facie case and the defendant must produce controverting evidence that he does not own the property and/or did not receive notice an opportunity to protest.
EXLP Leasing, LLC, et al v. Webb Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 04-14-00343-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 5594 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 3, 2015, pet. denied)
Property owners challenging whether their property was taxable in a certain county did not run afoul of the tax payment requirements of Texas Property Tax Code § 42.08(b) by making no tax payment because the amount of taxes not in dispute was zero. Their failure to file a statement with the court of their intended payment amount did not constitute a jurisdictional error.