Texas Delinquent Tax Case Law Review 2017 (Cases current through September 1, 2017)

Texas Delinquent Tax Case Law Review 2017 (Cases current through September 1, 2017)

City of Austin v. Travis Cent. Appraisal Dist., 506 S.W.3d 607 (Tex. App. Austin 2016, no pet.) TAKEAWAY: A taxing unit cannot establish an injury sufficient to confer standing to challenge section 41.43(b)(3) and section 42.26(a)(3) of the Texas Property Tax Code when the provisions of the statute do not charge the taxing unit with implementing the provisions.

McKnight v. Moss, 2017 WL 2462315, (Tex. App. Tyler 2017, no pet.) TAKEAWAY: When a taxpayer exercises her right of redemption, the purchaser of the property seeking reimbursement must provide in detail the 34.21(a), (e) permissible costs for reasonably maintaining, preserving, and safekeeping the property.

Barrera v. Chererco, LLC, 04 16 00235 CV, 2017 WL 943436 (Tex. App. San Antonio Mar. 8, 2017, no pet.) TAKEAWAY: In order for a purported owner to toll the statute of limitations in a challenge to a tax sale, the purported owner must continue to pay the taxes for the subject property.

Mount Vernon United Methodist Church v. Harris County, 14 16 00590 CV, 2017 WL 1512251 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 25, 2017, no pet.) TAKEAWAY: If a Taxing Authority (City) has a perfected and recorded lien on the Property before the taking, its interest vests in the condemnation award upon its deposit and the Taxing Authorities may satisfy their lien from the deposit.

Floyd v. Wharton County, 13 15 00480 CV, 2017 WL 2180697 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi May 18, 2017, no pet. hist.) TAKEAWAY: A petition to vacate judgment under Section 33.56 of the Texas Property Tax Code may be titled as a motion to vacate judgment provided that the substance of the motion satisfies all the requirements of the statute.

Leal v. Dallas County, 05 16 01164 CV, 2017 WL 1075635 (Tex. App. Dallas 2017, no pet.) TAKEAWAY: An order of sale signed by the District Clerk is not appealable.

Sullivan v. Sheridan Hills Development L.P. 2017 WL 1719170 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.], May 2, 2017, no pet hist.) (not reported) TAKEAWAY: Even in actions demanding refunds of penalties and interest, tax assessors continue to enjoy governmental immunity and can only be sued for acts outside their legal authority (ultra vires) or in a mandamus action alleging abuse of authority.

Piwonka v. SPX Corp. 2017 WL 1181302 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.], March 30, 2017, no pet. hist.) (to be reported). TAKEAWAY: The Tax Code s exclusive procedures were sufficient to protect SPX s right to due process on protesting the location of its property with the appraisal district. Therefore, the Tax Assessors were not needed to litigate those claims and were immune from the suit.

DEK M Nationwide, LTD v. Hill, 14 15 01030 CV, 2017 WL 1450016 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 18, 2017, pet. filed) TAKEAWAY: If a trial court does not specify on which ground(s) it relied when granting a summary judgment, an appellant must negate every ground on which a summary judgment could have been granted.

Mays v. Dallas County, 06 16 00067 CV, 2017 WL 1739765 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2017, pet. denied). TAKEAWAY: Adding a defendant, or updating a defendant s service address does not require a motion and order, and amending a petition with the new information is proper.

City of El Paso v. Mountain Vista Builders, Inc., 08 15 00186 CV, 2017 (Tex. App. El Paso March 8, 2017, no pet.) TAKEAWAY: Ataxpayerisbarredfromraisingtheaffirmativedefense of lack of notice in district court if the taxpayer failed to first pursue the statutory administrative remedy available through the appraisal district.

Anheuser Busch, L.L.C. v. Harris County Tax Assessor Collector, 516 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). TAKEAWAY: Under TEX. TAX CODE 31.02(A), a Tax Assessor must 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. Failure to do so will postpone the delinquency date under TEX. TAX CODE 31.04.

Kilgore ISD v. Axberg, 2017 WL 4542865 (Texarkana Court of Appeals) (To be published) TAKEAWAY: alleged actions by superintendent and board of trustees did not support ultra vires (outside of the scope of their duties) exception to sovereign immunity, district is not immune from suit and liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, taxpayers were not required to exhaust their administrative remedies, and election of remedies doctrine did not bar the taxpayers action against the district

Cantu v. Elbar Investments, Inc. and Tax Ease Funding, L. P. 2017 WL 2180715 (Not Reported) Houston [1st Dist.] TAKEAWAY: property owner s conclusory argument that the trial court should have considered the money deposited in the registry of the court after the foreclosure sale, paid buy the buyer as excess proceeds, without demonstrating entitlement to the funds under Tex. Tax Code Section 34.04 did not raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he met or was excused from meeting the tender requirements of Tex. Tax Code Section 34.08 prior to challenging the foreclosure sale.

JAMRO Ltd. v. City of San Antonio, (Tex. App. San Antonio, 2017 WL 993473, (not reported) TAKEAWAY: The City of San Antonio in setting up a TIRZ (Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone), negotiating a proposed development agreement with JAMRO and later terminating the TIRZ without entering into a formalized development agreement acted within a governmental function and is entitled to governmental immunity from suit

Texas Attorney General s Opinion KP 0144 TAKEAWAY: Subsection 26.08(a) of the Texas Tax Code requires the registered voters of an independent school district to approve an adopted tax rate if the governing body of the district adopts a tax rate that exceeds the district s rollback tax rate. The rollback rate calculation, defind in subsection 26.08(n), includes a maximum M&O rate component and a current debt service rate component. The debt service component of the rollback rate does not reflect the debt service tax rate of the preceding year but of the current year. As a result, the rollback tax rate effectively measures only the M&O component of the tax rate.

Texas Attorney General s Opinion KP 0144 TAKEAWAY: The computation of state funding for school districts receiving additional state aid for tax reduction must not include local option homestead exemption repeals or reductions that Texas TAX CODE section 11.13(n-1) prohibits.

Harris County Appraisal District v. Texas Workforce Commission, 519 S.W. 3d. 113, Texas. TAKEAWAY: Members of the Harris County Appraisal Review Board were employed by the County Appraisal District under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act and are not exempt as a part of the judiciary.

Floyd v. Wharton County Question #1: Pursuant to Rule 71 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a request to vacate judgment under Section 33.56 of the Tax Code must be styled as petition. FALSE

Leal v. Dallas County Question #1: An appellate court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal on an order of tax sale FALSE

McKnight v. Moss Question #1: Is a purchaser at a tax sale entitled to reimbursement of costs to maintain, preserve, and safe keep the property when a tax payer exercises her right of redemption under 34.211? FALSE

Barrera v. Chererco Question #1: In order for a purported owner to toll the statute of limitations in a challenge to a tax sale, the purported owner MUST continue to pay the taxes for the subject property. TRUE

DEK M Nationwide, LTD v. Hill Question #1: Federal due process claims may be asserted for the first time on appeal. FALSE Question #2: When a summary judgment ground is unaddressed, its validity is presumed. TRUE

Sullivan v. Sheridan Hills Development L.P. Question #1: Even in actions demanding refunds of penalties and interest, tax assessors continue to a enjoy governmental immunity, and can only be sued for acts outside their legal authority (ultra vires), or in a mandamus action alleging abuse of authority. TRUE

Mays v. Dallas County Question #1: A party may amend its pleading without leave of court up to seven days before trial, or within such time as allowed under a pretrial order, if the amendment does not operate as a surprise to the opposing party. TRUE Question #2: Atrial court may not refuse to allow the amended pleading unless (1) the party opposing the amendment produces evidence of surprise or prejudice; or (2) the amendment adds a new cause of action, and the opposing party objects to the amendment. TRUE Question #3: The plaintiff may amend [its] petition to substitute new parties for those named so long as the addition by amendment does not unreasonably delay trial of the case or prejudice the defendant, and the substitution of the new party does not prejudice the defendant. TRUE Question #4: When joining a defendant, or updating a defendant s address in a suit to collect delinquent taxes, a motion and order is required under rule 39 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. FALSE

City of Austin v. Travis Cent. Question 1: Ataxing unit fails to exhaust its administrative remedies and deprives the district court of jurisdiction if it requests the appraisal review board to deny its petition during the administrative hearings. TRUE

City of El Paso v. Mountain Vista Builders, Inc. Question #1: A taxpayer is not barred from raising the affirmative defense of lack of notice in district court even if the taxpayer failed to first pursue the statutory administrative remedy available through the appraisal district. FALSE