Victor Dewayne White v. Ector County Appraisal District
11-17-00059-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Ector County Appraisal District sued Victor Dewayne White for $1,634.31 in delinquent ad valorem taxes and sought foreclosure.
- White, incarcerated at the time, was served in jail; he filed a motion to dismiss but never answered.
- The appraisal district amended its petition, obtained a tax hearing set for January 23, 2017, and served parties; White acknowledged receiving notice but did not appear or request alternative means of participation.
- At the hearing the district introduced certified tax records; the court admitted them and White presented no competent evidence rebutting the prima facie case.
- The trial court entered judgment for the district; White appealed pro se raising many disparate complaints (quo warranto, constitutional claims, fraud, service defects, equal protection, and sufficiency of the evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction/service of process | White contends he was not properly served and trial court lacked jurisdiction | Appraisal District says White made a general appearance by moving to dismiss and seeking relief; county court had proper jurisdiction | Waived: White’s motion to dismiss/general appearance waived service challenge; court had jurisdiction |
| Due process / notice of hearing | White claims lack of notice and inability to appear due to incarceration | District produced notice; Rule 117a and prison-access law allow alternative means; White didn’t request continuance or remote appearance | Waived and overruled: White admitted receiving notice and failed to seek continuance or alternative appearance |
| Equal Protection / Fourth Amendment / other collateral claims (quo warranto, fraud, DTPA, arrest) | White alleges unequal treatment, unlawful searches, fraud by attorneys, and quo warranto grounds | District: these claims were not pleaded/tried in trial court and were not preserved for appeal; briefing is inadequate | Not considered/waived: unpleaded or unpreserved; inadequate appellate briefing; court will not sua sponte develop claims |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove delinquent taxes | White asserts he paid taxes and challenges evidence | District relied on certified tax rolls as prima facie evidence under Tax Code §33.47; burden shifted to White to introduce competent rebuttal evidence | Affirmed: certified tax records legally and factually sufficient; White presented no competent rebuttal evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Stoner v. Thompson, 578 S.W.2d 679 (Tex. 1979) (plaintiff may not recover on unpleaded cause absent trial by consent)
- Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) (pro se litigants held to same standards as attorneys)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency review standard)
- BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (implied findings may be challenged when reporter’s record is filed)
- Shields Ltd. P’ship v. Bradberry, 526 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. 2017) (implied findings necessary to support judgment)
- Reinmiller v. County of Dallas, 212 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006) (certified tax records constitute prima facie evidence of delinquent taxes)
- Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007) (pro se must properly present issues on appeal)