Duke Realty Limited Partnership and Huffmeister Development, LLC v. Harris County Appraisal District
14-15-00543-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 30, 2016Background
- Subject property: ~62 acres in Harris County; Duke bought ~60 acres and Huffmeister ~1.5 acres in May 2013 for about $14 million. Appraisal Review Board values: $8,925,700 (2013) and $13,779,192 (2014). Trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment for appellants.
- Appellants (Duke & Huffmeister) sued Harris County Appraisal District claiming unequal appraisal under Tex. Tax Code § 42.26(a)(3) and presented expert Delbert Kendall valuing the property at ~$4.79M (2013) and ~$4.01M (2014).
- Appellee’s expert Wesley Ballou valued the property at ~$12.32M (2013) and ~$12.73M (2014); trial court credited Ballou and found appellants failed to prove any median appraised value for 2013–2014.
- Trial focused on choice of comparables and adjustments: Kendall used similarly sized, highway-adjacent comparables across northwest Harris County (emphasizing size); Ballou used immediately nearby comparables (emphasizing location).
- Appellants argued Kendall’s methodology satisfied the Tax Code and thus conclusively established unequal appraisal; the trial court weighed credibility and preferred Ballou’s analysis.
- Appellants did not preserve or substantively brief a factual-sufficiency challenge or a Rule 702 reliability challenge on appeal; the court treated their complaints as legal-sufficiency only and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants proved unequal appraisal under Tex. Tax Code § 42.26(a)(3) | Kendall’s comparable-selection and adjustments comply with the Tax Code and show the subject’s appraised value exceeds the median of appropriately adjusted comparables | Ballou’s nearby comparables and adjustments produced a substantially higher median; trial court should credit District’s expert and find appellants did not establish a median value | Court held appellants failed to conclusively prove unequal appraisal; reasonable factfinder could credit Ballou and reject Kendall |
| Whether the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support trial court findings | Evidence from Kendall conclusively establishes entitlement to relief (unequal appraisal) | Evidence supports trial court’s findings; appellants waived factual-sufficiency argument and only preserved legal-sufficiency challenge | Court found appellants waived factual-sufficiency challenge and overruled their legal-sufficiency challenge |
| Whether trial court erred by resolving conflicting expert testimony | Kendall’s uncontradicted adjustments establish the proper median | Trial court may weigh credibility and disregard testimony if reasonable | Court affirmed that trial court properly resolved conflicting expert testimony in favor of Ballou |
| Whether Ballou’s testimony was unreliable under Rule 702 | Ballou failed to follow generally accepted appraisal principles (argument raised on appeal) | No Rule 702 challenge was preserved below; appellants failed to brief or cite authority, so complaint waived | Court declined to consider an unpreserved/repeatedly unbriefed Rule 702 attack and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency review and deference to factfinder credibility determinations)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (burden on party attacking adverse finding to show evidence conclusively establishes opposite)
- Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998) (expert testimony must be relevant and reliable under Tex. R. Evid. 702)
- Mar. Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402 (Tex. 1998) (appellate courts must not substitute their credibility determinations for the factfinder)
- Green v. Alford, 274 S.W.3d 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (bench-trial findings have force of jury verdict and standards for reviewing findings)