Bobby and Joyce Seguin v. Bexar Appraisal District and Appraisal Review Board and Michael Amezquita, Individually
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 3837
Tex. App.2012Background
- Bobby Seguin, a 100% disabled veteran, initially qualified for a Texas tax exemption under Tex. Tax Code §11.22 in 1984.
- Seguins relocated to Alabama in 1990, remaining nonresidents of Texas while exemptions were later increased by the district.
- In 2009 the district reviewed exemptions and removed the exemption for 2004–2008 after determining Bobby was no longer a Texas resident.
- Seguins protested, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the District and Board, while denying Seguin’s motion against Chief Appraiser Amezquita.
- This appeal challenges whether residency, constitutional rights, and related doctrines permit removal of the exemption; the court affirms the trial court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does residency limit eligibility for the disabled veteran exemption under §11.22(g)? | Seguin argued residency is not required for a disabled veteran exemption. | District contends §11.22(g) requires Texas residency for eligibility. | Yes, residency is required for eligibility. |
| Does the Texas Constitution create a vested property right in the disabled veteran exemption? | Seguin asserts a vested right arises from Art. VIII, §2(b). | Legislature may grant exemptions; rights are not vested and revocable. | No vested right; exemption is legislatively revocable. |
| Did §11.22 exceed constitutional authority by limiting the exemption to Texas residents? | Seguin argues legislature lacked authority to restrict to Texas residents. | Constitution grants legislature discretion to create exemptions within constitutional limits. | Legislature validly limited to Texas residents. |
| Is §11.22(g) rationally related to a legitimate state interest under equal protection? | Seguin asserts disparate impact on nonresidents. | Rational basis supports restricting exemptions to Texas residents. | Yes; rational basis review applied; statute sustained. |
| Were due process or equitable estoppel doctrines applicable to prevent removal of the exemption? | Seguin claims due process and estoppel apply due to prior notices. | No due process violation; estoppel does not apply to government actions. | No due process violation; no equitable estoppel against the district. |
Key Cases Cited
- HL Farm Corp. v. Self, 877 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1994) (equal protection rational-basis framework for state tax exemptions)
- Ultrasound Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Dallas Cent. Appraisal Dist., 357 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (legislature may restrict exemptions; ‘may’ grants discretionary authority)
- First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Combs, 258 S.W.3d 627 (Tex. 2008) (equal protection analysis in tax context; taxation requires rational basis)
- Northern Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. Willacy Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 804 S.W.2d 894 (Tex. 1991) (tax exemptions subject to strict construction; burden on claimant to prove eligibility)