Harris County Appraisal District v. 4085 Westheimer Holdings, Ltd., Highland Village Shopping CTR., 2706 Suffolk Holdings Ltd., 3994 Westheimer Holdings Ltd. and Highland Village Limited Partnership
01-20-00325-CV
Tex. App.Jun 15, 2021Background
- Property owners (five business entities) own Highland Village Shopping Center in Harris County; they appealed the ARB’s 2019 appraisal to district court under Tax Code Chapter 42.
- Section 42.08 requires payment of some taxes before the statutory delinquency date (Feb. 1, 2020) as a jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review.
- HCAD filed a plea to the jurisdiction supported by Tax Assessor-Collector records and certified delinquent tax statements showing no 2019 tax payment by the delinquency date; HCAD also requested proof of payment from the owners.
- The Property Owners submitted verified statements they had "confirmed with their accountants" that taxes were timely paid, screenshots from the Tax Assessor’s delinquent-accounts search saying "No data available," and a verified claim that COVID-19 prevented obtaining documentary proof before the court ruled.
- The district court denied HCAD’s plea; on accelerated interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals held HCAD’s evidence was competent and the owners’ submissions failed to raise a fact issue, reversed the denial, and rendered judgment dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under Tex. Tax Code § 42.08 (prepayment requirement) | Owners: they timely paid taxes and satisfied prereqs; intended to pay undisputed portion | HCAD: certified tax records show no payment by delinquency date, so no jurisdiction | Held: HCAD met burden; owners failed to rebut; no jurisdiction — dismissal rendered |
| Admissibility/timeliness of HCAD’s tax records and certified statements | Owners: records unverified and certified statements filed after submission | HCAD: records and certified statements are competent and were properly before the court | Held: documents are competent and properly considered; owners waived objections by not timely objecting |
| Sufficiency of owners’ rebuttal evidence (verified allegations; website screenshots) | Owners: verified statements and Tax Assessor webpage showing "No data available" indicate accounts were not delinquent | HCAD: those submissions are conclusory or ambiguous and do not affirmatively show payment | Held: owners’ verified allegations and screenshots are insufficient to create a fact issue |
| COVID-19 excuse and remedy (remand or continuance) | Owners: pandemic hampered obtaining documents; request to remove matter from submission and remand | HCAD: owners should have moved for continuance and complied with rule requirements | Held: pandemic claim did not satisfy requirements for continuance; owners failed to preserve ruling; remand denied; judgment rendered |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for resolving jurisdictional fact disputes and when plea may be granted)
- Grimes Cty. Appraisal Dist. v. Harvey, 573 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019) (Section 42.08 is a jurisdictional prerequisite)
- Welling v. Harris Cty. Appraisal Dist., 429 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (failure to prepay forfeits right to judicial review)
- Laidlaw Waste Sys. (Dallas), Inc. v. City of Wilmer, 904 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1995) (pleadings, even if verified, are generally not competent evidence)
- Samson Expl., LLC v. T.S. Reed Props., Inc., 521 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. 2017) (preservation rules for appellate review of evidentiary objections)
- Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2004) (continuance may be warranted where opposing party cannot present facts essential to its opposition)