*1 gаg issue a order trial court stated would party derogatory par- in a manner”. As signed. and the the order was say another that date ties have little to about one essentially derogatory, pro- the order is that Davenport, in we conclude relators As speaking them one another hibits about remedy by appeal, and that adequate have no at all. appropriate. See also relief is therefore (Tex.1992). Eden, 837 Kennedy v. argues a court has William in gag family to issue оrders broader by in this The named relators respondent cases, procedural protections and of no judge of proceeding the trial active evidentiary hearing tice and an can dis court, any who recused himself before pensed gag with are included in when orders are concerned proceedings with which we adopted temporary orders under assigned judge who issued occurred. Family 11.11 of Texas Code. Section 11.11 shortly gag also himself order recused part: states Relators have named subse- thereafter. (a) judge parent-child quent assigned who refused vacate affecting a suit gag respondent in a related relationship, the court make order tem- grant relief safety proceeding. mandamus we porary order ... and wel- child, today judge to on to the last rule including fare of the but not limited directed gag ... to an order: order. (3) restraining any party from molest- majority grants court Accordingly, a ing disturbing peace or of the child file, and relators’ motion for leave to without party.... or another hearing conditionally grants a argument, oral (b) Except appli- circumstances not [in directing the trial court to writ mandamus here], temporary restraining cable orders 29,1994, withdraw its order December injunctions temporary under this sec- vacating paragraph to issue 9 of the an order Tex.RApp.P. granted necessity'
tion shall be without the September order of 1994. pleading stating of an or affidavit verified only if trial 122. The writ will issue showing speсific facts that immediate and promptly comply. court fails loss, damage irreparable injury, will result notice can be served and a before
hearing temporary can be held.... A granted
restraining order under this sec- tion need not:
(1) injury why define the or state it is irreparable; or BAPTIST CORPUS CHRISTI PEOPLE’S (2) granted why state order was Petitioner, CHURCH, INC., without notice. give trial courts While section does cases, family powers in it does not
broad APPRAISAL NUECES COUNTY guar- authorize them to invade constitutional al., DISTRICT et antees. The trial court here could have Respondents. adopted complied with Dav- order Nо. D-4333. enport, it faded to so. This was a do clear of discretion. abuse Texas. Supreme Court of likely gag faults order Argued 1994. Oct. proce procedure, function or lack motion, dure, adopting it: no formal used notice, hearing no prior formal no Rehearing Sept. Overruled exigent is no indication that evidence. There circumstances warranted an abbreviation
procedures authorized when passed the date the seven weeks between *2 Graham, Rider, Grego- R.
Russell Kent M. ry Perry, Morales, Austin, E. Dаn for re- spondents.
HECHT, Justice, opinion delivered Court, PHILLIPS, in which Chief Justice, CORNYN, OWEN, GAMMAGE and JJ., join. categories exempt
Persons some from property ordinarily must apply for an May before year 1 of for imposed. which taxes are Tex.Tax Code § Legislature 11.43. has this extended deadline, however, exemptions, for certain including organization exemp- ques- § tion. Id. 11.433. The case us before particular statutory provi- tions whether sion, section violates of two either provisions of the Texаs Constitution: article prohibits Legisla- which extinguishing any person’s ture from obli- State, gation and article prohibits retroactive laws. hold it We does not.
I imposed upon property
Taxes are real January each as of Tex.Tax Code § by 21.02. that date a On lien authorized VIII, section 15 of the Texas Constitu- property tion attaches to the to secure their § payment. Id. 32.01. The amount of taxes assessed is determined until in the later however, year, appraisals when been have completed and tax rates 26.01 & set. Id. 26.05. Tax bills must be mailed October assessed, year for which of the taxes are practicable. soon thereafter as Id. § upon Taxes are receipt 31.01. due bill, paid by February and if not of1 following year, unit sue to collect tax and Id. foreclose its lien. §§ 31.02 33.41. & 2(a) VIII, Article Con- Texas Legislature to stitution authorizes the ex- empt property religious organizations taxation, and exer- has authority. § cised this Id. To be 11.20. however, exemption, a reli- entitled to Cover, Gibbs, Jr., gious organization, Charlotte A. David claim- C. like certain others Conneaut, OH, Jr., Jackson, Clyde Corpus ing exemptions, apply tax must to the chief Christi, petitioner. appraiser property in the district where Religious Application first 11.433. Late before 1 of the located Exemption Organization claimed. which the (d). (e) (a) 11.43(a), Application accept & appraiser shall The chief subsequent an ex- approve deny need not be *3 requires emption unless it. appraiser [for the chief under Section 11.20 made 11.43(c). pro- organizations] filing the deadline after § if is application 11.43 vided Section the application exemption An for was first re- of the filed than December 31 not later 1982, quired religious organizations af- year the taxes year sixth the in which after then the new ter 11.43 what was exemption were for which the is claimed 26, 1979, May Tax Code took effect. Act of imposed. R.S., 841, 3(a), § Leg., 66th ch. 1979 Tex. (b) appraiser may approve The chief not 2217, 1980, Gen.Laws 2313. Before under exemptiоn for an filed application a late law, procedure claiming the the for the prior on imposed if the under this section religious organization for a exemption was year the property the for the for which sworn, taxing authority file the item- with the exemption paid claimed are before is approved exempt property. Act ized list of application filed. is 1, 14, 1931, R.S., 124, Leg., 42nd ch. May (c) application approved If after a late is 211, (formerly 1931 Tex.Gen.Laws 211-12 the аpproval appraisal for of the records 7150(1)). This art. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. granted, year the is exemption for which 1, repealed, January statute was effective notify collec- appraiser the shall the chief 1980,by Tax the enactment of the new Code. prop- tor for unit in which the each R.S., 26,1979, 841, May Leg., Act of 66th eh. erty year in the taxable for which was 3(f) 6(d), 2217, & 1979 Tex.Gen.Laws exemption granted. shall is The collector 2315, religious organization ex- 2330. organization’s deduct tax bill emption under seсtion Tax new imposed for property amount of tax on the Code, simply which carried over from the year paid and if the tax has not been 1, prior January became effective on and interest unpaid penalties accrued 1980, along parts other the new with Code. may relating not to that tax. collector 1979, R.S., 26, 841, May Leg., Act of 66th ch. paid on penalties, refund or interest 2217, § 3(f), 1979 Tex.Gen.Laws 2315. As exemption which is property for an noted, however, already years this was two grantеd this section. under 11.43, the effective of section before date (d) grant an appraiser may The chief Thus, governing applications exemption. for pursuant ap- exemption property to an for organization a religious 1980 and 1981 was if the plication under filed required property, to file make not a list of qualified ex- property otherwise application, anything do to claim else January emption under the law effect on exemption. property tax year exemption of the tax which the is claimed. requirement application and the an (e) un- application filed An not be filing appear application deadline 31, 1991. der after December this section caught religious organizations and have other 8, 1990, C.S., unaware, 6, ch. tax-exempt persons Leg., Act of 71st 6th with result June 1,1990 pro- is the they their Tex.Gen.Laws that some lost because Comm, 1993, late in this case. In timely apply vision issue did for it. See House Ways Means, application dеadline was further extended Analysis, Tex.H.B. on Bill & (e) (1993) to read as when was amended subsection Leg., (explaining R.S. 73rd follows: twelve-year enacted reason for the extension (e) (a), six-year Notwithstanding also applies Subsection earlier.) approve appraiser accept
extension enacted three chief shall exemption un- deny in 1990 response, application enacted an an 6, 1990, filing deadline September der 11.20 after the effective Section aрplication provided by if the Section which states: filed, effective, filed not later than December 31 of the section 11.433 became 12th after the in which the taxes about two applied months later the Church for which the is claimed were for an for the 146.343 acres for imposed if through filed be- 1989. The Nueces January fore 1995. This subsection ex- Appraisal applica- District denied the pires January solely tion because it considered section 11.433unconstitutional under article seс- 30,1993, R.S., Leg., Act of 73rd ch. tion 55 and article 1,§ 1993 Tex.Gen.Laws 4235. Section Appraisal Constitution. The Review Board 11.433 does not extend applying the time for upheld Appraisal District’s decision. already if the taxes have paid, permit been nor does it refunds. petitioned The Church the district court *4 County’s for review. Nueces earlier-filed de- Section 11.433 is similar to two other stat- linquent against tax suit the Church was permitting utes enacted in 1991 applica- late consolidated Attorney with this action. The exemptions, tions for tax although per- purpose General intervened for the limited of granted by mission those two statutes has defending constitutionality of section (six- expired. now 11.434 TexTax Code stipulated 11.433. The case was tried on exemption extension for school until facts. The Church abandoned its claim of 31, 1992); § December (two-year 11.435 ex- 1985, exemption for the 1984 and based organization tension for charitable exemption upon the outcome of an unrelated lawsuit. 31, 1991); 27, until December Act of if, parties agreed only if, The that sec- 1991, R.S., 836, Leg., 6.4, 72nd ch. 6.3 & constitutional, tion 11.433 is the Church is 2890, 1991 Leg- Tex.Gen.Laws 2894-95. The exemption entitled to an for the 146.343acres islature has also extended the deadline for 1986-1989. The district court claiming exemption a homestead for a rendered for the Church. paid after taxes delinquent. or become 11.431. Section un- TexTax Code determined, appeals The court of as a 11.433-.435, appears like sections to have matter, County, threshold that Nueces been motivated constitutional concerns. District, County Appraisal Nueces and the (1980) (“A Op.Tex. Att’y See Gen. MW-259 Appraisal Board, Review which we refer to legislatively designated cutoff date for home- collectively County”, standing as “the had to VIII, stead claims under article challenge constitutionality of section section 1-b of the Texas Constitution will not 11.433. 860 S.W.2d The Church operate deprive taxpayer alone to a of an Attorney challenge and the do not General ”); Op.Tеx. Att’y ... see also Gen. Court, County’s standing giv- in this (1984) (section permits JM-221 standing en that the Church has and our refunds when homestead is filed disposition issues, of the constitutional we late). question. need not address that See Texas Bd., Ass’n Business v. Texas Air Control (Tex.1993). II 852 441 1 S.W.2d n. The appeals court of held that section 11.433vio- Corpus People’s Baptist Christi III, lates article section 55 of the Texas Church owns a tract of some 430 acres in County’s Constitution and did not reach the County. piece Nueces A 24.33-acre arguments upon based section 16. long exempt tract has been from taxation and disagree 860 at 631. Because we S.W.2d dispute litigation. is not in in this In 1990 appeals, with the court of we consider both applied the Church for and received an ex- provisions. constitutional emption for an additional 146.343acres of the time, tract. At about the same Nueces Ill County sued the Church to collect taxes as- Article sessed on the 146.343 acres from 1984 provides: Constitution through paid. 1989 that were never appears Lеgislature to have been the first effort to col- shall have no to Shortly lect those taxes. extinguish, after that suit was release or or to authorize the
625 extinguishing, in it can extend time releasing or whole or Dickison v. indebtedness, liability filing applications. See Wood part, or obli- Soc’y, Ins. individual, men the World gation any corporation or Life (Tex.Civ.App. Antonio any county or to State defined — San 'd) (when permits, ref the constitution thereof, writ municipal subdivision or other cor- prescribes, рarticular exemp than a therein, rather poration delinquent except taxes tion, may ordinarily limit period which have been due for pleases). years. least ten its face does not on extin- process contends that once Section 11.433 taxing guish owed to a authori- levying completed given year liabilities taxes is Indeed, ty. religious organization does due, if a amount and taxes become assessed apply within the extended taxing obligation is an unit which period, taxing unit is еntitled recover extinguish cannot release or Rather, delinquent the effect of all taxes. by extending claiming the deadline merely delay section 11.433 is exemption. authority collecting pre- taxes for a delinquent argues The Church period scribed of time until either reli- “indebtedness, liability are not an or obli- *5 gious organization exempt or files for status gation” meaning within the of section 55. application. ap- to make an fails late When regard argument doWe not as even аllowed, taxing plication longer is no the unit plausible. thing, For one there no would be is free to taxes. collect its except reason for 55 section to taxes delin- tolling to quent years provision for if is similar statutes ten as it does this section limitation, permis are contemplate did not that of which we have held taxes were an obli- III, gation another, under section 55. purview. within its For it is sible Sam Co., simply argument City the of Houston plain too for that Bassett Lumber assessed obligation sought pеrsonal taxes are to a for taxing an owed to obtain The delinquent property unit. taxes. defendant unsurprising We reached this conclu- Houston, long ago. City sion v. asserted limitations as a defense. Court Ollivier of 943, (1900). 201, ten-year of 93 Tex. 944 concluded a statute limita 54 S.W. that III, section 55 tions did violate article though Even we believe taxes due are because statutes do not release or limitation clearly obligation taxing entity an to a that merely a extinguish but affect reme debt forgiven III, сannot be under article section sought. dy when its is 198 enforcement 55, we do not believe section 11.433 extends (citing Goldfrank, at 882 Frank S.W.2d & Co. forgiveness. such simply pre Section 11.433 432, (1885); Young, v. 64 434 Limestone Tex. scribes exemption the time which a tax Robbins, 341, County v. 120 Tex. 38 S.W.2d County’s argument must be claimed. The (1931); Bank v. 584 Central Nat’l La Legislature constitutionally for tham, (Tex.Civ.App.— 22 768 S.W.2d bidden to an to allow be estab ref'd)). Austin writ lished after taxes have been is too assessed III, merely We conclude that section reading strict a of article section 55. As claiming above, procedures determines for Legislature pre we noted has religious organization exemption and does tax scribed various deadlines collection obligations. extinguish tax not release or process: January imposition 1 for of Accordingly, we hold that section does July property, September 25 1 appraising III, rates, not violate article section 55 the Texas levying mailing tax 1 for October bills, Constitution. February payment. tax 1 Legislature tо is likewise entitled set a dead IV exemption applications. line for See Sam Houston, City Bassett 145 also asserts Lumber Co. (1947). 492, 198 prohibited arti Tex. 882 as 11.433is retroactive law S.W.2d Just Constitution, I, Legislature may orga make the cle section 16 of the Texas attainder, automatic, post ex nization as it in which states: “No bill did law, any impair- facto retroactive or law I. contracts,
ing obligation shall be III, Under article made.” Constitution, Leg- tax liabilities the any power forgive
islature has to are delin- rights destroyed quent Unless vested or taxes that have been due for at least Const, Ill, Tex. impaired, years. though a law is not invalid even ten art. 55. Oth- erwise, operation. Project retroactive in State v. has “no Inc., (Tex. Principle, extinguish, release or or to authorize the 1987). releasing extinguishing, in whole or in Section 11.433 be said to have part,” liability any corporation the tax some retroactive effect in that it allows an County. exemption to individual owed to the Id. The be established aftеr taxes are However, delinquent already assessed. taxes at issue this case are for we have de termined, tax extinguish 1986-89 and thus not within the 11.433 does not any liability; Legislature’s power forgive. By simply prescribes tax retroac- tively attaching exempt timing for collection. A status to the unit has no property, right forgives vested until Church’s section 11.433 original liability for those con- determined. Section 11.433 does not retroac trary plain tively exemption; terms of article confer an it extends the determining time for whether Thus,
is warranted. section 11.433 is not a The Court concludes that section 11.433 retroactive law violation of article sec extinguish does not or release such obli- tion 16. gation, simply County’s limits the reme- dy collecting the taxes. 904 S.W.2d n n n n n ‡ *6 limitation, asserts, 625. This the Court akin to statutes of limitation which we have Because we hold that section 11.433 does III, held do not violate article section 55. III, not violate either article section 55 or Houston, City Sam Bassett Lumber v.Co. I, Constitution, article of (1947). 145 Tex. 198 S.W.2d 882 judgment we reverse the of the court of Section 11.433 does not have a similar effect. appeals affirm of the trial court. that, undisputed appli- It is but for the late
cation,
property
the Church’s
is entitled to an
exemption under section 11.20. TexTax
ENOCH,
joined
GONZALEZ,
by
Justice
Code
§
11.20. An
under section
SPECTOR,
HIGHTOWER
Justices
by May
11.20 must be
1 of the
claimed
dissenting.
sought.
for which the
Id.
11.43(d).
retroactively
allowed,
§
Section 11.433 seeks to
attach
Once
the section
exempt
property
subsequent
status to the
need nоt
claimed in
be
organizations.
only
It
except
is available
to delin-
in certain situations not rele-
11.433(b).
11.43(e).
TexTax Code
quent taxpayers.
Church,
§
vant
Id.
here.
al-
Continuing
though
exemption,
its beneficence to those who fail
entitled to an
did not
taxes,
Hall,
pay
Syntax,
to
their
see
Inc. v.
claim the
1986-89
(Tex.1995) (delinquent
property
subject
627
it,
con-
laws have been
fix
and such
when taxes
not
exempt
property
status to
attach
in the
to be retroactive
stantly held not
already
assessed and
been levied and
have
is used.
in which the term
sense
delinquent.
11.433 of the Texas
Section
55 of
violates article
section
Tax Code
Interpreting the
Mellinger,
appeals. I dissent. WILSON, Petitioner,
Lee
v. John W. BURFORD and Sue
Burford, Respondents. WILSON, Petitioner, Lee
v. HODGES, Hodges James T. Dona and J. Carolyn Heath, Respondents. WILSON, Petitioner,
Lee
v. Keith JONES Brenda Gail
Jones, Respondents. WILSON, individually Lee Lee d/b/a Realty; Salyer, Wilson Ted Individu- V. ally Salyer and Wilson Con- d/b/a Company; Morgan struction Donald Salyer Salyer, individually, and Lorene Petitioners, Hommel, Martin, William S. Reid William Tyler, petitioner. Shirley
Jessie PARKER and Parker, Respondents. Whitehurst, A. Tyler, respondents. Bob Nos. 94-1248-94-1251. PER CURIAM.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Evidence that
сonsidered
summary judgment
granting
“depo
includes
transcripts
sition
... referenced or set forth
Rehearing
Sept.
Overruled
response”.
in the motion or
Tex.R.Civ.P.
166a(c). In
four cases consolidated on
these
appeal,
appeals
depo
the court of
held that a
transcript
sup
sition
attached to a brief in
port
summary judgment,
of a motion for
filed
motion,
with the
and referenced
the non-
response,
proper summary
movant’s
was not
judgment evidence.
Plaintiffs in these eases are four sets of Defendants were involved homeowners.