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)