Kenneth W. Arthur v. Uvalde County Appraisal District, Albert Mireles, Chief Appraiser
04-14-00533-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 9, 2015Background
- Arthurs seek enforcement of Chief Appraiser's written reductions and credits for specific properties and tax years under §1.111(e).
- Patti Van Pelt, an Arthurs’ employee/agent, allegedly engaged with UCAD in forming the agreements; Arthurs argue designation of agency existed via emails and writings.
- Chief Appraiser signed or initialed documents reflecting assent to specific reduced values and credits for the Arthurs’ properties.
- UCAD argues no binding agreement due to lack of a formal designation by Arthurs and asserts Comptroller Rule 9.3044(f) to be unenforceable against UCAD.
- The trial court granted UCAD’s no-evidence MSJ; Arthurs contend there was no proper basis for MSJ and that genuine issues of material fact existed.
- Arthurs request reversal and entry of summary judgment in their favor or remand for trial to enforce the written agreements under §1.111(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCAD could prevail on a no-evidence MSJ when it bore the burden of proof | Arthur, UCAD bore burden | UCAD relied on no-evidence standard | Trial court erred; UCAD could not use no-evidence MSJ when burdened |
| Whether Rule 9.3044(f) is valid and enforceable against UCAD | Rule 9.3044(f) binds UCAD; Van Pelt was an Arthurs’ employee | Rule 9.3044(f) conflicts with Tax Code §1.111; unenforceable against UCAD | Rule 9.3044(f) is valid and enforceable against UCAD |
| Whether there were administrative remedies to compel UCAD to honor the §1.111(e) agreements | No administrative remedies to enforce written agreements | Remedies may have existed under other provisions | No administrative remedies required; court is proper forum to enforce |
| Whether Arthurs exhausted remedies under §25.25 | Exhaustion not required for enforcement of §1.111(e) agreements | Arthurs failed to exhaust under §25.25 | Not required; §1.111(e) provides enforcement mechanism independent of §25.25 |
Key Cases Cited
- Mission Consolidated Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (burden of proof on movant in jurisdictional challenges)
- Binur v. Jacobo, 135 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. 2004) (no-evidence MSJ evidence treated as dispute issues)
- McConnell v. Southside ISD, 858 S.W.2d 337 (Tex. 1993) (summary judgment grounds must be in motion)
- American Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Danke, 95 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. 1936) (distinguishes agent from employee)
- Finance Comm’n of Texas v. Norwood, 418 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. 2013) (administrative interpretation entitled to deference)