Kinder Morgan SACROC, LP Kinder Morgan CO2 Co., LP Kinder Morgan Production Co., LP And Kinder Morgan Production Co., LLC v. Scurry County Snyder Independent School District Scurry County Junior College District D/B/A Western Texas College Scurry County Hospital District D/B/A Cogdell Memorial Hospital
589 S.W.3d 889
Tex. App.2019Background
- Scurry County and local taxing units challenged the appraisal roll claiming Kinder Morgan’s mineral interests were omitted/undervalued for 2013–2018; the Scurry County Appraisal Review Board denied the challenges.
- Appellees sued in district court seeking de novo review under Tax Code §41.03(a)(2) and mandamus relief under §25.21 to fix values and require reappraisal/back-appraisal.
- The appraisal district had hired Pickett, which used the comptroller’s statutory method; Appellees’ consultant using public filings reported a ~$14 billion variance for Kinder Morgan’s Scurry County minerals, alleging omissions/possible fraud.
- Appellants (Kinder Morgan entities) answered, first filed a Rule 91a motion, then filed a TCPA motion to dismiss more than 100 days after service of the original petition.
- The trial court held the TCPA motion untimely and refused to extend the TCPA deadline for “good cause.”
- The court of appeals affirmed: the second amended petition did not reset the TCPA 60‑day clock, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an extension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellees) | Defendant's Argument (Appellants) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second amended petition reset the TCPA 60‑day filing period | Original petition alleged omitted property but the second amended petition newly alleged taxpayer fraud, so the TCPA clock should start from the amended petition | The original petition gave fair notice that property was omitted (including theories of fraud/omission); the amended petition only refined allegations and did not start a new "legal action" | The amended petition did not reset the TCPA deadline; the original petition provided fair notice, so Appellants’ TCPA motion was untimely |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying an extension for good cause to file the TCPA motion | Delay was excusable because Appellants first pursued Rule 91a and only later filed the TCPA motion when fraud allegations appeared; the motion invoked TCPA policies for early dismissal | Appellants made deliberate litigation choices (serial motions) causing delay; they could have filed TCPA motion earlier and offered no excusing accident/mistake | No abuse of discretion; trial court reasonably found no good cause to extend the TCPA filing period |
Key Cases Cited
- Atascosa County v. Atascosa County Appraisal District, 990 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1999) (duty to back‑appraise omitted property; taxing unit standing)
- In re ExxonMobil Corp., 153 S.W.3d 605 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004) (taxpayer fraud can render prior assessments void ab initio and warrant back‑appraisal)
- Beck & Masten Pontiac‑GMC, Inc. v. Harris County Appraisal Dist., 830 S.W.2d 291 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992) (fraud may void assessments)
- In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (TCPA requires more than notice pleading; nonmovant must present clear and specific evidence to avoid dismissal)
- Dallas Morning News, Inc. v. Hall, 579 S.W.3d 370 (Tex. 2019) (standard of review for TCPA motions)
- Willacy County Appraisal Dist. v. Sebastian Cotton & Grain, Ltd., 555 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. 2018) (discusses Section 25.21 relief and assessments affected by fraud)