*2 summary judgment of a function LAGARDE, Before CHAPMAN and deprive right to litigant not to of its a full JAMES, JJ. hearing any issue of on merits of fact patently is to eliminate unmeritorious but OPINION claims and untenable defenses. Gulberikian LAGARDE, Penn, 412, 416, Justice. Tex. (1952). reviewing for The standards Appraisal Dal- Dallas Central District and judgment summary motion for are: County Appraisal appeal
las Review Board summary judgment judgment 1. The from trial court’s movant showing that amending tax rolls for 1988 hаs there and 1989 the burden fact genuine of material Corporation Directories issue favor of G.T.E. it is entitled to aas APPRAISAL ROLL matter of law. error, In point appellants their first granting contend that the trial court erred deciding disput- whether there is a GTE’s motion for *3 precluding ed material fact issue sum- denying summary judgment. their motion for mary judgment, evidence favorable to whether, dispute main this case is the non-movant will be takеn as true. under the facts of this the trial court Every reasonable inference must be in amending appraisal pursu- erred the rolls indulged in favor of the non-movant 25.25(e)(3). ant to section any doubts resolved in its favor. provides: 25.25 Section Co., Property Nixon Management v. Mr. 690 (a) provided by Except Chapters as 41 and 546, (Tex.1985); Montgomery S.W.2d 548-49 42, by [the Tax this sec- Code] (Tex. 309, Kennedy, v. 669 S.W.2d 310-11 tion, appraisal may the roll not be 1984); Univ., Mary’s Wilcox v. St. 531 changed. (Tex.1975). 589, purpose S.W.2d 592-93 rule is not to provide by deposition either a trial or a trial (c) any At time before the end of five by provide affidavit but to a method of sum years January year, after 1 of a tax marily terminating clearly a case when it board, appraisal review on motion of appears only question that of law is in appraiser the chief or of a genuine volved and that no issue of material owner, may by direct written order Hamman, fact remains. Gaines v. 163 Tex. changes appraisal in the roll to correct: 618, 626, (1962). 557, 358 S.W.2d 563 movant, When defendant is the sum (3) the inclusion of that does not mary judgment proper only plaintiff if the exist in the form or at the location cannot, law, as a upon any matter succeed appraisal described roll. theory pleaded. Peirce v. Sheldon Petrole (Vernon 1992). § 25.25 TexTax Code Ann. Co., 849, (Tex.Civ.App.— um 589 S.W.2d attempt appraisal GTE made no have writ). 1979, Thus, Amarillo the defendant changed pursuant chapters rolls 41 and 42. prevail by conclusively establishing can 25.25(d) provides remedy Section also for against plaintiff at least one factual ele resulting appraised errors in an incorrect theory pleaded by plaintiff, ment of each However, motion for correсtion of Corp., Gibbs v. General Motors 450 S.W.2d appraisal roll must be filed before the 827, (Tex.1970), by conclusively estab delinquent. taxes become Tex.Tax Code lishing every factual element of an affirma 25.25(d) (Vernon 1992). § GTE did not Ann. Swilley Hughes, tive defense. 488 S.W.2d remedy, this utilize either. GTE does not (Tex.61972). 64, Conversely, plaintiff assert that the did not exist at the by presenting can bar ap location described the 1988 and 1989 question evidence that creates a fact on those praisal Thus, judg the trial court’s plaintiffs elements case under attack change ment can stand if by the defendant or on at least one element by trial court was ordered by of each affirmative defense advanced “to correct: ... the inclusion of Casualty defendant. Torres v. Western & that ... does not exist the form Co., (Tex.1970); Sur. see roll.” Co., Puga also v. Donna Fruit (Tex.1982). Alternatively, 680-81 To “in determine whether exists plaintiff roll,” by conceding can defeat the motion form ... described undisputed, meaning the material facts are “appraisal but we must determine the convincing “apprais- the court that the defendant’s le roll” and “form.” The code defines gal position of Devitt, [appraisal] is unsound. Estate al “[t]he roll district” as records, (Tex.App changed order of . —Amarillo denied). approved by writ review board and resulted praisal § 25.24 roll to correct an error that that board.” 1992) added). (Vernon the own ap- appraised incorrect value for (emphasis “The in an property.” being in the er’s praisal records” are defined as Ann. TexTax Code (Vernon 1992). 25.25(d) provision, That comptroller in- prescribed by the however, change provides the motion to cluding: appraisal roll must filed before or, the name and address the owner delinquent, taxes become unknown, a if the or address name cor than one-third the must exceed more unknown; statement that it is value, and the landowner rect property; penalty.” pay a “late-correction See (3) separately or interests taxable estates *4 (Vernon 1992). 25.25(d) § Ann. Code pos- property, including in real taxable (c)(3) “ap in included sessory рrop- If “form” subsection exempt in interests real value,” filing erty; praised the strict deadlines (d) provisions subsection would penalty (4) personal property; (c)(3)’s fil five-year subsumed subsection (5) and, if appraised the value of the land penalty. ing deadline with no late-correction provided by appraised land is as Sub- 25.25(e)(3) § Compare Tex.Tax Code Ann. D, E, C, chapter Chapter or 23 of this 1992) (Vernon with Ann. Tex.Tax Code land; code, the market value of the (Vernon 1992). 25.25(d) § Because statutes (6) appraised to improvements the value of giving in a manner effect must be construed land; statute, the entire we read “form” to (7) appraised of a tax- separately the value meaning appraised more See than land; interest able estate or 311.021(2) (Vernon § Code Ann. TexGov’t (8) appraised personal propеr- the value of G.N.B., 1988); County Ap Inc. v. Collin ty; Dist., 52, praisal (Tex.App. (9) any partial exemption the kind of the 1993), grounds, —Dallas on other rev’d receive, owner is entitled to whether (Tex.1994); Industrial Accident S.W.2d applies or exemption appraised to (Tex. Martinez, Bd. v. value, and, in assessed case of an writ). App. no [14th Dist.] — Houston exemption authorized 11.23 Section code, exemp- of this the amount of the 25.03, 25.02(a), Reading sectiоns tion; 25.25(d) 25.24, 25.25(c)(3), together, we year appraisal the tax to which property its construe “form” of the to mean applies; and type listed property as a identification 25.02(a), property, such as under section taxing an identification of each unit improvement property, an to real personal property which the is taxable. physical description property, or other somе 25.02(a) 1992). (Vernon § TexTax Code Ann. roll, property appraisal other of the appraisal roll describe the appraised or its value its use. See than sufficiently only identify required it or as 25.02(a), 25.24, §§ comptroller. by the Ann. TexTax Code (Vernon 25.25(c)(3), 25.25(d) 1992); Collin (Vernon 1992). § 25.03 Appraisal Dallas County Dist. Northeast Having “ap meaning determined Assocs., (Tex.App . —Dal roll,” praisal we must now determine what writ) (form includes las “described сonstitutes “form” form, including descriptions property’s of the appraisal Appellants that in the roll.” assert boundaries, shape, configuration, but its “form” of constitutes more than the descriptions proper of the does include appraised property. Besides value of use). ty’s (d) (c), note that subsection we subsection summary judg- Throughout motion for provides appraisal corrections its also rоll (d) appeal, permits its on GTE asks affecting liability. tax ment and brief Subsection appraisal rolls to to look to file motion with courts behind owner com- ap descriptions appraisal change “to review board Thus, legislative supporting appraisal mercial worksheets 1988 and 1989. intent property’s incorrectly expressed analysis If the form in the bill is not relevant worksheets, then, ar- to this case. guеs, appellants and the courts should be change able to value on the ESTOPPEL 25.25(e)(3) clearly roll. Section proper- GTE asserts that the “form” of the permit language does not us do so. The ty was incorrect as listed on commercial 25.25(c)(3)requires section that incorrect supporting worksheets roll be- description be of “the form ... described in proper- cause the worksheets stated that the roll.” Ann. Code ty three-story building ninety-nine was a 25.25(e)(3) (Vernon 1988) (emphasis add- condition, when, fact, percent good ed). argument, Under GTE’s poor had two stories change to the roll would be the argues appellants are condition. GTE and, above, appraised value as discussed estopped asserting they from cannot not a look behind the roll to correct an property. prop- incorreсt of the form of the *5 erty supporting on the worksheets. GTE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY showing appellants, filed affidavits that two argues analysis GTE that the bill of sec- 25.25(c)(3) occasions, had, on three on mo- 25.25(c)(3) legislature’s
tion shows the intent tions, appraisals underly- corrected when the 25.25(c)(3) apply that section to the facts of ing square-footage worksheets overstated the “Background” this case. The section of the improvements. 25.25(c)(3) analysis bill of section describes problem the law was intended to solve: Generally, estoppel the doctrine of apply against government does not entities. authority At this time there is no clear Dallas, Arrington County See appraisal an review board to non- remove of (Tex.App. writ property existent from the tax roll. Non- — Dallas denied). However, if an even this case were property property existent includes the of rule, exception general to that could not gone businesses which have out of business prevail estoppel use it to because is a defen prior beginning year of the tax and only; it not sive mechanism does create addi property improvements which were either rights. tional v. First See Hruska State beginning demolished or moved before the (Tex.1988). Bank, In year. of the tax estoppel this GTE seeks to use the Leg., Tex.S.B. 71st R.S. Analysis, Bill expand wording doctrine to the clear of sec (1989). 25.25(c)(3) beyond appraisal tion roll to analysis only Most of the bill discusses the commercial worksheets. The statute (c)(3) portion concerning prop- of subsection requires subject plainly that to be to correc erty that does not exist at the location de- tion, incorrect of the form of appraisal only por- roll. The scribed appraisal property appear analysis may tion of the bill that address the estoppel pro not roll. The doctrine of does property existing in issue of not the form looking beyond appraisal vide a basis for appraisal described roll is the state- roll. “[njonexistent ment, property includes the property gone of businesses which have out CONCLUSION prior beginning of business to the of the tax property year.” portion building that of the bill The was on the Whatever mean, analysis may during admitted in the it is not relevant to this 1988 and 1989. GTE nothing suggests legal description record trial court that the in the case because prior appraisal that out of business to the roll was correct. GTE also admit GTE went years. Although description of the beginning appraisal of the tax GTE’s ted that the rolls’ land, condition, consisting property, poor was in it did exist at of real ap- improvements rolls was correct. The the location described on the of “form” majority concludes that praisal rolls did not otherwise describe to its identification as property is limited property. form the Because the 25.02(a), property listed under section type the form and at the loсation did exist in rolls, property, an property, personal in the section as real described such 25.25(c)(3) property, or some other applicable. improvement to was not in the summary judgment trial order court’s roll, appraised value other than its changing listed 25.02(a) or use. See change of not a (Vernon 1992). I this narrow con- believe ap- property’s ... in the “form described 25.25(c)(3) conflicts with structiоn section by praisal roll” and was authorized sec- County Appraisal Dis- our in Collin decision 25.25(e)(3). ap- tion The record shows that and with trict v. Northeast Dallas Associates proved pellants their entitlement to legislative history of the statute. judgment Accordingly, of law. as matter Associates, Court, granting this we hold that the trial court erred Dallas Northeast 25.25(c)(3), interpreting for GTE in overrul- stated: section ing summary judg- appellants’ motion for Property does not Tax Code The Texas appellant’s point of ment. We sustain first explanation of provide a definition or what appellants’ error. We do not reach second “the inclusion of meant point challenging court’s error trial form or at the location does not exist objections overruling their GTE’s sum- Although roll.” mary judgment evidence. certainly is included nonexistent 25.25(c)(3), we language of section judgment the trial court’s We reverse statutory limit lan- are not inclined to the trial court render *6 only property. guage to mean nonexistent granting appellants’ should have rendered “shape the and “Form” is defined as struc- motion for that GTE distinguished something as ture from nothing. take of HeRItage its substance.” The AmeRican (2d ed.1985). 525 And “form” CHAPMAN, J., dissenting. DICTIONARY appearance a “to the distinctive of refers CHAPMAN, dissеnting. thing to determined its visible lines.” be respectfully I I dissent. would conclude “form” in Id. the term section We believe properly change the trial court ordered the 25.25(c)(3) not refer to the use of the does to inclusion the correct the physical description property but to the of property of that did not exist in the form property, would include bound- the which the rolls. See aries, configuration propеrty. shape, or of 1992). 25.25(c)(3) (Vernon § Ann. Code Appraisal v. Northeast County Dist. Collin (Tex. Assocs., majority asserts that “form” means Dallas writ) “appraised App. (emphasis add more than value.” It concludes — Dallas ed). Thus, as only change sought on this court has held that “form” because the 25.25(c)(3) value, to the appraised the of used in section refers face the rolls was the 25.25(c)(3) description property. Fur provide “physical” GTE a of the section does not ther, not to remedy. agree “physical” more does refer I that “form” means “real,” “personal,” an is, property is appraised taxpayer than value. That a whether 25.25(c)(3) “improvement,” majority suggests. his the cannot resort to section when Rather, physical description prop of the only complaint disagreement is about the the a boundariеs, configu erty shape, the appraised property. of the Neverthe- refers to value like, less, ration, property. the North the and the of I errors “form” can affect believe Associates, circumstances, at 849. I Dallas appraised In such east value. 25.25(c)(3) require not Property a The Tax does provides Code would conclude section as con physical description prоperty, of the taxpayer remedy notwithstanding a that the Associates, templated by to Northeast Dallas appear error in “form” actual does the face of the rolls. be included on face the rolls. of (Vernon 25.03 building. caused structural defects in the Supp.1995). Instead, Thus, physical descrip I property would conclude the did not tion property on the found commer exist in the described in the cоmmercial cial worksheets. These worksheets deter Although worksheets. these errors appraised mine the be value to included in “form” property literally ap- did not Therefore, pear appraisal rolls, appraised on the property ultimately subsumed into value on the rolls was from transcribed appraised an appear value which does Therefore, appear worksheet. the error did Thus, face of the rolls. I would conclude that “on way ap- rolls” of an incorrect Associates, under Northeast Dallas section praised Specifically, value. errors on 25.25(c)(3) provides a taxpayer remedy a commercial worksheets caused the physical description when the $4,464,000 appraised at in 1988 and on the commercial worksheets is incorrect reality proper- when in value of causing appraised an incorrect value. This ty $554,464 years only those was and 25.25(c)(3) interpretation of section is consis $277,232,respectively. I conclude sec- would tent requiring with the law tous resolve all 25.25(c)(3) tion change in authorized a doubts in taxpayer the law favor appraisal rolls under the of this facts case. against taxing authority. Bullock v. Alternatively, appellants contend the trial Statistical Tabulating Corp., 549 S.W.2d court granting erred in (Tex.1977). genuine because issues of fact material exist. I disagree majority’s also with the conclu- appraised trial court ordered the value legislative history sion that of section $554,464 GTE’s reduced to 25.25(c)(3) majority’s is irrelevant. The ra- $277,232 years. for the 1988 and tax premised tionale is on the fact that section Appellants they controverting assert offered 25.25(c)(3) give does not taxpayer remedy a summary judgment evidence that the value when change sought on the face of greater GTE’s in those rolls is the years. Appellants rely showing on evidence The statutory permitting amendment a tax- initially how it calculated the payer change rolls was in- GTE’s for the provide taxpayers tended to remedy when *7 Appellants’ rolls. evidence shows “gone a businеss had out of business.” See what have would been Leg., Analysis, 71st Bill Tex.S.B. R.S. worth had its been correct (1989). However, whether a business is “in” undisputed commercial worksheets. The required “out of’ business is not to be summary evidence, however, judgment con- included See clusively that the showed 25.02(a) (Vernon 1992). There- Code Ann. property on the commercial worksheets was fore, the mere fact that incorrect, resulting in an incorrect property sought changed to be is not literally Appellants’ evidence does not raise a preclude rolls does not relief. respect fact issue with to the value of the undisputed summary judgment evi- property in 1989 its actual condi- dence showed value on the Accordingly, tion. I appel- would overrule determined the commer- point lants’ first error. Therefore, cial worksheets. an error оn the error, point In appellants their second commercial worksheets would result in an overruling contend the trial court erred in error on the rolls. The commercial work- objections their to certain affidavits GTE improvements sheets described the three-story support summary offered its motion for ninety-nine land as a However, judgment. percent Appellants assert good prop- condition. thе affidavits not, therefore, erty proper exist are irrelevant and are reality, did not as such. two-story structurally was a Tex. un- evidence. 166a(f). building. poor Appellants sound for R.Crv.P. reason maintain we condition of the cannot our construc- consider affidavits in review. laying building’s tion errors in I complained-of foundation have not considered the affi Accordingly, appel I would overrule davits. affirm point еrror would
lants’ second judgment. For the reasons court’s the trial stated, respectfully I dissent. KENNEDY, Appellant,
Glenda APARTMENTS, HIGHLAND HILLS Appellee. No. 05-94-00688-CV. Texas, Appeals of Court of Dallas. 29, 1995. June Doggett, Legal Robert W. Services July Publication Ordered Texas, Dallas, appellant. for North Law, P.C., Dallas, Meyer,
Greg T. Dilts & Dallas, Law, Law, P.C., D. Dilts & Ronald appellee. LAGARDE, MALONEY, and Before JAMES, JJ.
OPINION
LAGARDE, Justice. detainer we consider
In this forcible strictly comply failure to whether tenant’s *8 proce requirements rule of civil with the 749b(2) to a final the landlord dure entitles awarding possession it a trial premises the absence county court. Tex.R.Civ.P. merits in landlord 749b.1 We conclude so entitled. registry pay justice court one into provides:
1. Rule 749b period's of the rent under terms rental Pauper's Nonpayment of Affidavit in Rent agreement. rental Appeals appeal process rent be- During nonpayment a forcible detainer rent agreement, the rental comes due under appealed by filing tenant/appellant who has tenant/appellant pay the into the shall rent pauper's these rules shall enti- affidavit under days county registry within five premises during court stay possession of the tled to agree- of the rental date under the terms by complying due pendency appeal, with following procedure: ment. pay (1)Within tenant/appellant If fails days five of the date affidavit, registry the time court within pauper’s rent into the tenant/appellant his he files