U. Lawrence Boze' & Associates, P.C. and U. Lawrence Boze' v. Harris County Appraisal District
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 6246
Tex. App.2011Background
- Boze’ sued Harris County Appraisal District to challenge appraised values of business personal property for 2003–2005.
- HCAD moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing Boze’ did not substantially comply with Tax Code section 42.08 prepayment requirements.
- Boze’ moved his office from 2208 Blodgett to 2212 Blodgett in 2000 but did not inform HCAD or update rendition records; notices continued to go to 2208.
- Boze’ filed a correction motion under Tax Code section 25.25 for 2003–2005; Board denied/ dismissed the motions; orders stated Boze’ forfeited the right to a final determination by noncompliance with 42.08.
- Boze’ petitioned for judicial review; the trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; on appeal, the First Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Issue: whether Boze’ substantially complied with 42.08 and whether other preserved objections affect the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Boze’ substantially comply with 42.08(b) prepayment? | Boze’ contends he disputed all taxes due and thus the lesser prepayment was zero. | HCAD asserts Boze’ did not pay any portion of the taxes by the delinquency dates. | No; Boze’ did not pay any taxes before delinquency and thus did not substantially comply. |
| Did Boze’ substantial comply with 42.08(d) oath requirement? | Boze’ argues the oath of inability to pay satisfied 42.08(d). | Boze’ filed the oath after the Board dismissed correction motions; thus not timely. | No; Boze’ did not file the oath before the Board acted, so forfeited the right to a final determination. |
| Was Boze’ allowed to challenge the visiting judge or preserve discovery objections? | Boze’ sought to contest the visiting judge and discovery conduct. | Boze’ failed to preserve these issues by timely objection or ruling requests. | Waived; not preserved for review. |
| Did the trial court’s lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law require reversal? | Boze’ claimed error due to missing findings. | No substantial purpose served; issues were undisputed factual matters. | No reversible error; findings of fact and conclusions of law were unnecessary and harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.C. Evans Construction Co. v. Travis Central Appraisal Dist., 4 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999) (substantial compliance requires notice and payment or timely oath to avoid forfeiture)
- Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Tex. Gas Transmission Corp., 105 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (mandatory prepayment generally; strict compliance favored for tax protests)
- Dipaola Realty Assocs. v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 841 S.W.2d 487 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (no substantial compliance where no timely payment by delinquency date)
- Filmstrips & Slides, Inc. v. Dallas Cent. Appraisal Dist., 806 S.W.2d 289 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (pay-before-delinquency rule generally required for substantial compliance)
- Titanium Metals Corp. v. Dallas County Appraisal Dist., 3 S.W.3d 63 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999) (section 25.25(c)(3) correction does not cure prepayment deficiency when property exists at the location)
- Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. v. McLennan County Appraisal Dist., 927 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996) (distinguishes disputes over jurisdiction to tax from disputes over valuation for prepayment)