Grimes County Appraisal District v. James Scott Harvey, Jr.
573 S.W.3d 430
Tex. App.2019Background
- James Harvey owned 91 acres in Grimes County and had historically received an agricultural-use tax valuation; his 2015 tax was $138.13.
- GCAD initiated reapplication in 2016, denied Harvey’s agricultural-use application, and levied $8,855.16 in 2016 taxes.
- Harvey did not pay any 2016 taxes by the statutory delinquency date (Feb. 1, 2017) but filed a protest with the Appraisal Review Board (ARB).
- At the ARB hearing the ARB announced and issued a notice dismissing Harvey’s protest for lack of jurisdiction based on nonpayment.
- Harvey sued in district court seeking judicial review; GCAD filed a plea to the jurisdiction contending Harvey forfeited his right to judicial review by failing to make the minimum statutorily required tax payment. The trial court denied the plea.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and rendering dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to pay minimum undisputed taxes by delinquency date deprives trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction | Harvey: paying $0 should suffice because the “portion not in dispute” is unknowable until exemption is adjudicated, so undisputed amount = $0 | GCAD: Section 42.08(b) requires payment of taxes on the undisputed portion by the delinquency date; failure to pay forfeits right to judicial review | Held: Harvey’s concession he owed some tax means undisputed portion > $0; nonpayment forfeited jurisdiction and district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether ARB’s conduct (scheduling hearing/issuing form) conferred jurisdiction despite nonpayment | Harvey: ARB’s notice/hearing and the form titled “Order Determining Protest or Notice of Dismissal” functioned as a determination that conferred jurisdiction (relying on Teel) | GCAD: ARB explicitly dismissed the protest for lack of jurisdiction; mere scheduling or use of a multi-purpose form does not create jurisdiction | Held: ARB’s checked finding unambiguously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Teel is distinguishable where ARB actually decided the merits; no jurisdiction conferred |
| Whether Harvey was denied due process by not being allowed to present evidence at ARB hearing | Harvey: dismissal without receiving evidence violated due process | GCAD: Harvey had the statutory opportunity to protest but forfeited it by not paying the undisputed portion by deadline | Held: Procedural due process satisfied because taxpayer was afforded opportunity to be heard; forfeiture was statutory and not a due-process violation |
| Whether case should be remanded to cure pleading defects | Harvey: (implicitly) seeks review | GCAD: failure is exhaustion of administrative remedies, not pleading defect | Held: No remand; because failure to exhaust is jurisdictional, court rendered judgment dismissing the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Welling v. Harris Cty. Appraisal Dist., 429 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (minimum-tax-payment requirement under §42.08 is jurisdictional)
- U. Lawrence Boze’ & Assocs., P.C. v. Harris Cty. Appraisal Dist., 368 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (failure to pay undisputed portion by delinquency date defeats district court jurisdiction)
- Lawler v. Tarrant Appraisal Dist., 855 S.W.2d 269 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1993) (statutory payment deadline is prerequisite to judicial review)
- Cooke County Tax Appraisal Dist. v. Teel, 129 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (ARB’s express merits determination can confer district court jurisdiction)
- EXLP Leasing, LLC v. Webb Cty. Appraisal Dist., 511 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015) (where taxpayer contends no taxable property exists, undisputed tax liability may be zero)