*1 CORPORATION, In re EXXONMOBIL al.,
et Relators. Corporation,
In re ChevronTexaco al.,
et Relators. 07-04-0285-CV,
Nos. 07-04-0286-CV. Texas, Appeals
Court of
Amarillo.
Aug. *2 Ikard, Kilgarlin,
William William W. LLP, Austin, Ratliff, Popp Laurie & Ikard Liberato, Levy, Haynes Aleñe Ross Lynne Boone, LLP, Benjamin Singletary, M. *3 Cameron, Silvestri, Gable & Dennis Lisa Tulsa, OK, Davis, Gotwals, A. John ‘Jad’ Gerald, Midland, Davis & for rela- Turner tors. Norwood, Tighe
E.R. Cotton & Bledsoe Houston, Dawson, PC, Zabel, Catherine Ratliff, Shannon H. Bracewell <&Patter- son, L.L.P., Paulson, Lisa A. Ratliff Law PLLC, Austin, III, Firm Ed Kliewer Kliewer, Breen, Garatoni, Patterson & Malone, Inc., Antonio, Rodney San W. Sat- terwhite, Stubbeman, McRae, Sealy, Browder, Inc., Midland, Laughlin & Jack Jr., Co., Balagia Litigation Mobil Oil Houston, Macedón, NY, Ashley, G. Luke Ballew, P. Jefferson Adrienne E. Domin- guez, LLP, Dallas, Thompson Knight, & III, McClure, Jasper Taylor G. Daniel M. L.L.P., Fulbright & Jaworski D. James III, III, Thompson Max Hendrick Vinson L.L.P., Godfrey, & Elkins H. Lee Thomas Paterson, Christopher W. William Carmo- Merrill, dy, Apoda- William R.H. Frank T. ca, Godfrey, LLP, Houston, Susman Rob- Duncan, Alexandria, ert A. Lowy, Peter LA, Hunt, Doss, Donald M. Lawrence M. Brown, L.L.P., Lubbock, Mullin Hoard & party real interest. Moore, Brownfield, Kelly respondent. G. JOHNSON, C.J., Before and REAVIS CAMPBELL, JJ. CAMPBELL, T. JAMES Justice. Amerada Corporation, Hess et al. and al., Corporation, ChevronTexaco et rela- tors,1 petitions seeking have filed writs of directing respondent, mandamus the Hon- Corporation; 1. Relators in'cause number 07-04-0285-CV are Amerada Hess Amerada conclusion, Moore, judge contrary neous we will condi- Kelly G. of the 121st orable tionally grant relators Court, the writs seek. County, Yoakum to vacate District 3, 2004, May order entered cause Pleadings Taxing Units’ pending that court. The number 8198 pleadings state that pleas jurisdiction. order denied districts, independent are parties Real in interest Yoakum Coun- they utilize, appraisers services use ty, Independent whose City Denver School Dis- a part historical for oil as prices sales Independent trict Plains Dis- School projected of the income their calculation trict. from oil proper- in the future received *4 County In Yoakum and Den- cause income, future in ties. That estimate of City twenty-eight ver some com- ISD sued turn, oil valuing properties is in used relators,2 panies, including they allege The purposes. for ad tax histori- valorem properties4 own oil in Yoakum operate3 or includes, price by appraisers cal data used County, asserting causes of action for taxing prices for allege, “posted” units conspiracy respect to the fraud and to the prices reported oil and Texas sales properties of the for ad valorem valuation Accounts. Comptroller Public The tax- intervened, tax Plains ISD purposes. ing compa- units that the defendant allege making the same assertions. nies, intending apprais- knowing and information, rely engaged in a does ers on this Concluding that district court out brought conspiracy by over and fraud carried mis- the suit have price market oil by representations and mandamus of the for taxing local units5 transactions, through including to correct the trial erro- various available court’s necessary distinguish Trading Company; Corporation do not consider it Hess BP America, Inc., Corpora- Amoco North between in our discussion the issues f/k/a them tion; Company Production BP America presented. i/k/a Co.; Co.; Arco Gas Production Oil & Amoco Company ARCO Per- Atlantic Richfield mian; 2. All the in trial court cause num- a/k/a defendants Energy Ltd. Occidental one, Altura n/k/a except Shell Frontier Oil & ber Ltd.; Energy Altura LLC Occi- Permian Gas, Inc., n/k/a among the included relators in are LLC; Manager Marathon Pe- dental Permian pro- two one or the mandamus other Compa- Company; and Marathon Oil troleum ceedings. ny. Relators in cause number 07-04-0286-CV in be listed Mineral interests Corporation; ChevronTexaco Chevron are operator designat- records in the name of U.S.A., Company; Inc. Chevron Products a/k/a Commission of ed with the Railroad Texas. Inc.; Exploration & Produc- Texaco tion, Inc.; Texaco 2001). 25.12(b) (Vernon Tex. Tax Ann. Company; Oil & Four Star Gas Inc; Trading Transportation, and Tex- Texaco taxing units pleadings, use their Marketing, Refining Inc. Texaco aco and a/k/a oil-producing for the term "fixed oil interests” U.S.A.; Corporation Exxon ExxonMobil 1/k/a operated by or rela- mineral interests owned USA; Company, Mo- Corporation Exxon a/k/a tors. Inc.; Mexico, Producing & New bil Texas Corporation Exxon ExxonMobil Oil a/k/a f/k/a “taxing units” 5. We the term for will use Company; Corporation; Shell Oil Mobil Oil interest, following parties nomencla- real Company; & Exploration Production Shell parties and the Tax Code. ture used P, Inc; & Shell Oil Products Western E Shell 1.04(12) "taxing unit” to in- Section defines LLC; Enterprises, Ash- Company; Equilon districts, as well as clude counties and school Inc.; Marketing and Plains L.P. land political impose ad other units authorized petitions are not two for mandamus identical, property. valorem on they are not We taxes but inconsistent. sales;6 price fraud for posted participating sales oil to subsid- nies did so iary companies defendants, or affiliated at below-mar- the benefit of the and that the “buy/sell” ket prices; “swap or accepted monetary defendants benefits taxing sales.”7 The allege units scheme, from the and ratified the fraudu- defendants or their or affili- subsidiaries agents. lent conduct of their fraudulently misrepresented ates that each allege ap- units these actions caused the types these of transactions reflected the undervalue, praisal district8 ad valo- market value of oil when the transactions purposes, rem tax mineral interests-owned value, actually thereby understated market operated by resulting defendants knowingly intentionally misrepresent- an “underassessment and undercollection ing the market value of oil to Comp- units, thereby of taxes” caus- troller, independent appraisers hired ing damage by “depriving them them of districts, districts substantial Alleg- amounts revenues.” and to the units. The ing the defendants’ conduct was willful and allege further the defendants used affili- malicious, compensa- units seek ates and report subsidiaries to fraudulent- interest, tory exemplary damages, ly prices oil, deliberately undervalued *5 attorneys costs and fees. using thousands of transactions with them “generate to length, non-arms non-market suit delinquent The is one to collect prices,” they which reported then as the allegation taxes. There is no the defen- instances, market value of oil. In some pay dants failed to the taxes assessed taxing units’ pleadings allege, the affili- respect them with to the oil interests. ates and subsidiaries separate had no cor- Relators contend the trial court's deter- porate existence, only pa- but “existed on jurisdiction mination it that had was an per,” furthering the fraud and concealing abuse of its discretion it because was it from taxing authorities. The misapplication giv- of Tax Code provisions allege units also conspired defendants ing original jurisdiction exclusive over together units, to defraud the inter property appraisals to the appraisal dis- alia, by misrepresenting posted price that trict and the The review board. sales, buy/sell affiliate sales and swap or respond that their is one suit oil, sales reflected the market value of all asserting common law tort of action of which causes “systematic constituted a price nothing and Tax deprives undervaluation” that reduced the taxable right value of their them of to mineral and their assert such claims interests caused against units to lose tax It tortfeasors such as the revenue. is defendant alleged that each of the compa- deprives affiliated or court of companies district area, petition alleges 6. prices that geographic "Posted are do the same in another ac- prices purchasing companies pub- oil counting transportation pay- costs cash express lish to bulletin the amount that the parties ment. The record these transactions company willing pay is to for crude oil at the provide reported as actual of oil and sales fraudulently lease. misrepresen- Defendants price for these transactions that understates posted prices ted that transactions based on Often, the market value of oil. Defendants oil, reflected the market value of when in fact reported posted price revenues based on these transactions understated market value.” price buy/sell swap at which or sales occurred ...” petition alleges: "Buy/sell swap 7. The sales parties swap occur when two ato transaction County Appraisal 8.The Yoakum District is commodity geo- a certain volume of in one party not a to the suit. graphic exchange agreement area in for the law, v. They Perry jurisdiction emphasize them. is an abuse discretion. hear (Tex.2001). Rio, Del jurisdiction general of district courts our and under state constitution statutes. Tax Code Provisions VIII, con- Article section of our state for Plea to Jurisdiction Standards requires property, that all real stitution and Mandamus interests, which mineral unless includes trial rul reviewing the court’s “in to its val- exempt, proportion be taxed ing plea jurisdiction, on a we ue, which shall be ascertained as be any pleadings evidence relevant Const, VIII, Tex. art. provided by law.” jurisdictional Dep’t issue. See Texas 1(b). § requires The same section Ramirez, Transportation “equal taxation uniform.” (Tex.2002). 864, 867 We will construe the Const, 1(a). VIII, § The constitution art. liberally in the units’ fa pleadings further that “all lands and other requires Id. at al pleadings vor. must for taxation property not rendered facts, however, affirmatively lege at its fair owner thereof shall be assessed Const, jurisdiction to demonstrate the court’s value officer.” Tex. proper Texas Ass’n Bus. v. hear cause. See amendment, VIII, By art. a 1980 Board, Air Texas Control VIII, article section 18 of the constitution (Tex.1993). the trial court Whether “single within requires appraisal” that a subject legal has matter is a subject ad valo- county each by general reviewed de novo. State question provided rem is to be taxation passed by Leg- Public law Dept. Highways general ex rel. State law. The *6 Gonzalez, 322, con- Transp. codify single appraisal v. S.W.3d 327 islature to 82 (Tex.2002). cept Property Tax Code.9 Wilson was the Dist., County Appraisal
v.
Cent.
Galveston
A
mandamus
an ex
writ of
is
(Tex.1986).
98,
The Tax
713
100
S.W.2d
traordinary
only
that will
remedy
issue
obli-
Code thus codifies
constitutional
a clear
of
or the
correct
abuse
discretion
appraise
gation
government
our state
of
by law,
duty imposed
of a
when
violation
of taxa-
and
for
property
purposes
assess
adequate remedy by
no
law.
there is
other
County
tion.
Atascosa
v. Atascosa
See
v.
Helicopters,
Wittig,
Dist.,
255,
Ltd.
876
Canadian
County Appraisal
(Tex.1994).
(Tex.1999).
regard
part
As a
of this codifica-
analyzing
application
the law or
of the law tion,
in
cre-
Legislature
the Tax Code
facts,
trial court has no “discre
operation
begin
ated
districts to
appraisal
tion,”
and
properly analyze
1, 1982,
of
political
must both
as
subdivisions
January
Therefore,
Id.;
(establishing
§
the law to the facts.
6.01
an
apply
the state.
see
correctly analyze
apply
county
and de-
appraisal
clear failure to
district
each
“responsible
appraising prop-
an abuse of discre
claring
the law will constitute
it
Packer,
tax
erty
for ad valorem
in the district
tion. Walker
(Tex.1992).
imposes
each
legal
purposes
An erroneous
con
of
unit
on
in the dis-
clusion,
property
ad
taxes
unsettled area of the
valorem
even
an
will
as the Tax
simplicity,
we
refer to it
Property
Code is the
title of
9. The
Tax
short
I,
indicated,
consisting Chapters
through
of
of
all section
Title
Code. Unless otherwise
§
Tax Code Ann.
1.01
the Tax Code. Tex.
Code Anno-
refer to the Texas Tax
references
(Vernon 2001).
the Tax
All references to
2001).
(Vernon
tated
I;
opinion
Code in this
are to sections of Title
trict”).
pleadings
County
The Tax Code also
an
indicate that Yoakum
established
appraisal review board for each district. Appraisal
engaged
apprais-
District has
an
6.41,41.01.
§§
gas properties.
al firm to value oil and
An appraisal
governed by
district is
its
Following
property
notice to the
owner
directors,
board of
who are district resi-
value,
if
appraised
required,13
by
dents selected
units in the
appraiser
completed ap-
chief
submits the
§§
district.10 See
6.03-6.035. The district’s
praisal
appraisal
records to the
review
appoints
ap-
board
directors
the chief
board “for review and determination of
6.05(c),
§
praiser, see
and the appraisal
§
protests'.”
Property
25.22.
owners
board,
consisting
also
of individuals
protest
appraisal
before
review board
residing
§
in the district. See 6.41.
actions,
including
ap-
adverse
the chief
Among the duties of the chief appraiser
praiser’s determination of the value of
year
is the
each
preparation
appraisal
§
property.
41.41. The Tax Code contains
listing
property
records
all
taxable
provisions
hearing proce-
for the board’s
district
stating
appraised
value of
dures, including provisions for issuance of
§
each.
25.01.
form appraisal
rec-
subpoenas
taking
of evidence. See
by
ords is prescribed
Comptroller.11
25.24,
§§
seq.
et
Under section
Generally,
property
appraised
taxable
records,
appraisal
changed by
order
January
its market value as of
1. Market
appraisal
approved
review board and
value,
1.04(7),
defined
section
is to be
board,
appraisal
constitute the
roll
determined
the application
generally
§
for the district.
25.24.
apprais-
The chief
accepted appraisal methods and tech-
er
tax
certifies
assessor of each
niques. §
property12
23.01. Real
must be'
part
unit in the district the
reappraised at
every
least as often as
appraisal
listing
roll
taxable
25.01(b)
years. §
three
25.18.
au-
Section
unit,
part
ap-
which
becomes the
thorizes an appraisal district
to contract
26.01(a).
private
praisal
with a
roll for that unit.
perform
firm to
services. The
appraiser
chief
also certifies the
*7
and,
county
may
10. The
tax
practices
compli-
assessor-collector
a district
if
is not in
ance,
serve as a director under some circumstances.
§
to initiate
5.102. It
corrective action.
6.03(a).
§See
performance
appraisal
mandates
audits of
by
Comptroller
districts
the
under certain
provides
11. The Tax Code
for
in-
substantial
5.10,
§
requiring
conditions.
5.12. Section
the
Comptroller,
volvement of the
indirect,
both
and
direct
study
appraisal
annual
of
dis-
levels
each
appraisal
in the work of
It
districts.
major category
property,
trict within each
of
alia,
requires
Comptroller,
adopt
the
inter
to
Comptroller’s representatives
authorizes the
establishing
rules
minimum standards for ad-
inspect property
production
to
used for the
of
district,
operation
ministration and
of a
to
income
determine its existence and
to
market
provide
training
appraisal
for
for
review
5.10(c).
appraisal
§
value.
An
review board
appraisers,
prescribe
board members and
request
Comptroller
the
to assist in de-
the contents of forms and a uniform record
termining
accuracy
ap-
of the district's
the
system,
appraisal
to issue
manuals and other
praisals,
may provide
Comptroller
and the
publications,
publish
report
an annual
of
professional and
other
technical assistance.
districts,
operations
appraisal
the
of
and to
5.08,
§§
41.65.
study
appraisal
conduct an annual
of
levels in
§§
each district.
5.03-5.101. It further
re-
place.
12. Defined to include minerals in
quires
Comptroller
the
to review the stan-
1.04(2).
§
dards, procedures
methodology
by
and
used
compliance
certain districts to determine
generally accepted appraisal
§25.19.
standards and
13. See
roll,
summary,
to the
appraisal
district
or
Threshold Conclusions
26.01(b).
Comptroller.14 §
guide
Two threshold conclusions
dispositions
proceedings.
our
of these
of the Tax
sets out
Section 41.01
first
of the un
The
concerns
nature
board,
appraisal
the duties of the
review
derlying
taxing
Relators call the
suit.
which,
here,
as
include the duties
relevant
units’ suit an ad valorem tax case. The
protests
by property
to determine
initiated
conspiracy
units
it a fraud
call
and
owners,
by
challenges
determine
initiated
They
intention to
any
case.
disclaim
any
“take
action or
and
other
change
appraisals
the tax
or tax rolls.
any
this
make
other determination
They note their suit seeks common law
requires.”
authorizes
specifically
title
damages
conspiracy,
for fraud and
and
bring
§ 41.41.
units are
Taxing
entitled
prohibits
out
Tax Code
point
nowhere
of
challenges
designated actions before
bringing
counties or school districts from
them,
board,
appraisal
among
review
chal-
damages
those com
suit
recover
from
appraisals
any
lenges to the level of
of
mitting
acts. The
units do
tortious
category of
property
the district
deny, though,
compensatory
challenges to
from
property
an exclusion
damages they
necessarily would be
seek
§
appraisal
41.03.
records.
reduction in tax
measured
revenue
tortious con
caused
the defendants’
25.21,
ap-
Pursuant
chief
to section
determination,
course,
That
can
duct.
appraisal
in the
records
praiser
enter
be
the amount of
finding
not made without
that was
from an
property
real
omitted
have been
ad valorem taxes that would
any of the
appraisal
preceding
roll in
five
units if the defen
received
years, appraising
as of Janu-
properly
had been
valued.
dants’ minerals
Except
ary
year
it was omitted.
adjudi
district court therefore cannot
for
provided by
providing
section
asserted in the
cate
claims
errors,
chapter
generally
correction
they
and award the relief
pleading
hearing
protests
for the
providing
determining
market val
without
seek
board,
challenges
by the
ue,
purposes,
for ad valorem tax
judicial re-
chapter
providing
for
§
question.
26.09.
mineral interests
See
view,
re-
once
approved
Supreme
Court considered
Texas
board,
may not
roll
view
analogous
in Ector Coun
an
circumstance
25.25(a).
changed.
(Tex.1992).
Stringer,
ty v.
would substitute its County, Supreme units. In Atascosa by for that of the commissioners court duty that the chief appraiser’s Court held in an amount deter- awarding damages ap section 25.2115 to add under by mined the district court without defer- any omitted in praisal property roll real ence to the commissioners court’s authori- preceding years one of the five is nondis- ty salary. to set a reasonable It said: cretionary duty. 990 at 257. For S.W.2d “Reclassifying compensation due 25.21, “omit purposes property of section past services of a a debt is constable as appraisal from roll includes that ted” authority ineffective circumvent the taxpayer undervalued virtue of fraud. salary the commissioners court to set the Pontiac-GMC, v. Stringer, of a at See Beck & Masten Inc. constable.” 843 S.W.2d Dist., County Appraisal Harris 291, (Tex.App.-Houston S.W.2d 294-95 Likewise, damages a suit to recover denied). 1992, writ [14th Dist.] measured the ad valorem taxes not attempt distinguish Beck & Mas- by taxing received unit because of under- they point ten. The distinctions out do not property necessarily valuation of involves weaken, though, applicability of its substituting the district court’s determina- holdings that fraud taxpayer because tion of the proper property value of the property assessments there involved determined district property were void ab initio16 and thus the approved by the appraisal (in “escaped wording taxation” then And, just reclassifying board. as claim 25.21). appearing in section in Stringer one for a debt did not why 295. We see no reason mineral inter remove it from the constitutional and stat- utory activity ests undervalued the fraudulent provisions vesting authority in the court, alleged pleadings commissioners we cannot would consider subject trial court’s over the treatment.17 similar Gentle, (Tex.Civ.App.- 15. The current version of section 1, 1992, January n.r.e.). which was effective reads as Dallas writ ref'd follows: (a) appraiser If the chief that real discovers 17.Granted, "back-appraisal” property property was omitted from an roll years under section 25.21 is limited to the five any preceding years one five appraiser’s preceding chief action. See personal property was omitted from an County Appraisal Reynolds/Tex Dist. v. Harris preceding roll in one the two as, J.V., (Tex.App.-El years, appraise property he shall as of 1994, writ). Legislative Paso no attention January year 1 of each that it was omitted doubt, though, that section leaves no that the appraised enter the and its five-year By a 1991 limitation intentional. *9 appraisal value in the records. 25.21, back-ap amendment to section the holding, praisal period years In so Beck & Masten is consistent was shortened from ten long-cited precept 7, 1991, 507, with the that fraud will to Act of June H.B. five. See See, negate an otherwise final assessment. 1, Leg., R.S. Tex. Gen. Laws 72nd Paso, Ry. e.g., City & Tex. Pac. Co. El (1935); Yamini court to the district provided a der section challenge procedures The by fact and law raised taxing “try units in the all issues of remedy further for the applicable failed to address in the manner to civil appraiser pleadings the chief event they Thirdly, argument actions that consid- companies’ generally.” the oil suits specifically 41.03 fraudulent. Section express provision ered sections ignores the bring units to to taxing authorizes Comptroller’s pro- and 41.65 for the 5.08 challenges to the appraisal review board ap- assistance to and technical fessional prop- any category appraisals level Lastly, that boards. praisal review from an exclusion of erty and to apprais- to statutory applicable procedures Failing a satisfacto- appraisal records. by an might be strained al review boards board, de ry appraisal at the review result magnitude presented adjudication of was judicial review of its decision novo Legis- suggest does not by this case19 42.031, 42.21, 42.23; §§ available. See to procedures not intend the lature did at 259.18 County, 990 S.W.2d Atascosa of this nature. remedy a cases provide does not ex- taxing argument units’ to point elsewhere taxing can be procedures the Tax Code plain as indi- how procedures in Tax Code deadlines fraud raised in the adequate have intend- to deal with cating Legislature cannot case, provide protest a see taxpayer review board context of a ed Masten, claims remedy conspiracy for fraud and but Beck & here. they pursue seek to inadequate such as those are so procedures same challenge requires 41.04 They note section presented the issue is inapplicable when with the review board petitions to be filed unit. by days apprais- after the chief within fifteen completed appraisal records Exclusive Jurisdiction
er submits board, 41.11 and that sections the review lead to threshold conclusions Our fifty days to only permit and 41.12 would Tax Code’s remedies whether the question board, hearing at the review complete by which a the exclusive means are order and allow the obtain the board’s of fraud and unit must address claims of a tax notify the mineral owners board appraisal pro- occurring in the conspiracy reasons, argu- For several increase. cess. First, the Tax persuasive. is not ment states The Government Code challenges expressly provides Code jurisdiction provid court has the a district units, it contains no indication V, of the Texas by article section 8 ed dis- based on the challenges Constitution, further states conduct to deal with tortious trict’s failure hear and determine “may court district Secondly, the taxpayers are excluded. courts of cognizable cause that is any availability judi- ignores the argument any relief may grant equity law or in the review, a weakness cial which courts of by either action, granted could be board outcome Ann. Tex. Gov’t Code equity.” or other law press of time whether due 2004). (Vernon V, Article addressed, §§ 24.007-08 causes, novo. may be de Un- involve, allegations alternative, here authorizes 19. The section 43.01 18. As an paragraph of their one bring directly against the from the statements suit unit to of transac- pleadings, of thousands compliance hundreds compel its appraisal district to fifteen-year pe- occurring over a ten- to Comptrol- tions provisions, rules of riod. applicable law. ler or other
615 interpretation provides long of the dis as another reasonable section 8 constitution jurisdiction consisting trict at County, courts with exists.” Atascosa “exclusive, jurisdic Nootsie, appellate, original 258, v. quoting Ltd. Williamson actions, Dist., proceedings, 659, tion of all and reme 925 County Appraisal S.W.2d dies, exclusive, (Tex.1996). except ap cases where 662 jurisdiction pellate, original that support their contention conferred this Constitution or other jurisdic appraisal review board has no court, tribunal, on other or ad law some they against tion over the claims assert Const, Y, body.” ministrative Tex. art. relators, taxing correctly note units gen 8. Our district courts courts of are analysis that in an of a claim of exclusive jurisdiction, presumably eral having sub agency jurisdiction, administrative the ad ject jurisdiction contrary matter unless a body powers ministrative is limited to the America, showing is made. Subaru of clearly expressly given it and courts Nissan, Inc., Inc. v. David McDavid 84 authority. imply agency will not additional 212, (Tex.2002); 220 S.W.3d Dubai Petro See, Subaru, e.g., 84 at 220. We S.W.3d (Tex. Kazi, 71, 12 leum Co. v. 75 S.W.3d have stated our conclusion that the Tax 2000). language Consistent with the provided remedy Code units a V, constitution, article section 8 of the appraisal process for the infection of the contrary showing may Legisla be that the by fraud. do not consider that conclu We provided ture has the claim must be heard requires imply authority sion us either to Entergy elsewhere.20 See In re 142 Corp., of the board to appraisal review ensure 316, 321-323, S.W.3d 47 Sup.Ct. J. County that mineral interests Yoakum 729, (2004); Petroleum, 731-32 Dubai 12 value, un- appraised are based on market S.W.3d at 75. fraud, authority imply reduced or to Legislature contend the Relators if bring challenge units to neces- granted has ap district and sary to insist review praisal jurisdiction review board exclusive find, contrary, board do so. to the We address, matter, as an initial provisions that the of the Tax Code ex- units’ claims. an Whether administrative pressly provide necessary authority. body given has been authority, the sole or See, 6.01, 6.03, 23.01, 25.21; §§ e.g., see jurisdiction, exclusive to make an initial County, 990 at 257 also Atascosa S.W.2d determination in a dispute depends on (appraisal “charged review board is Subaru, statutory interpretation. See 84 ensuring properly ap- at 221. interpreting S.W.3d When stat praised”). ute, act, we “consider the entire its nature object, consequences effectively and the pro pose interpretation would follow from each construction.” an Tax Code County, quoting Atascosa at that denies the board and S.W.2d Inc., harp Lloyd, power House units the to address and S (Tex.1991). remedy, through S.W.2d We must also fraudu procedures, “reject interpretations appraised of a statute that lent conduct that reduces the purpose legislation defeat the of mineral so value interests below statu- Thus, clear, Entergy concepts. makes as in traditional administrative law 321-23, 731-32, Bennett, Sup.Ct. 47 Tex. J. at See Cash America Int’l Inc. v. grounded (Tex.2000). exclusive doctrine is V, article section 8 of well the constitution as *11 616 valuation, resolving disputes value. Such an in- clear-
torily-required market over ly of type regulatory the create the scheme terpretation would defeat Tax Code’s Entergy in require It to con- discussed and Subaru. purpose. also would us only has Legislature partially clude of the Tax comprehensive The nature requirement satisfied constitutional object Code is consistent with the it law, provide, by general single that it for a noted, through we have serves. As its in appraisal county. each The Legislature enactment carried out hardly Tax can be said to meet that Code See, specific e.g., constitutional mandates. requirement if it leaves individual Const, VIII, 18(b) § (requiring art. duty appraisals units the to correct based provision by general single ap a law of damages through against on fraud suits for 18(d) (re Id., praisal county); § in each property owners. Legislature quiring prescribe to “methods, general and admin timing law supreme opinions
Recent court consider to process” implement istrative section’s issues ing exclusive look requirements). The Tax does not Code presence “pervasive regulatory aof legislative reg to merely reflect decision indicating legislative intention scheme” private activity; ulate otherwise business regulatory process that the be the “exclu public it the exercise of the constitutes problem to remedying sive means function of taxation. See Atascosa Coun regulation is addressed.” En which 257, Wilson; at ty, 990 S.W.2d 322, tergy, Sup.Ct. 142 at 47 Tex. S.W.3d 100; Tri-City Supply at Fresh Water 732; Subaru, 221.21 J. at 84 S.W.3d at Mann, 280, Dist. 142 No. 2 135 Tex. supreme referred to the tax The court has (1940) to tax be (power S.W.2d in the Tax as com- scheme embodied Code longs sovereignty; only can be exer to County, prehensive, Atascosa body corporate cised subordinate when certainly scope and it is so and legisla or delegated so constitution respect appraisal, detail.22 With ture). bodies, created appraisal Code two new boards, Legisla- and pre- districts contend duties,23 scribing their and ture’s 2003 addition of section 22.29 standards24 belaboring supports position the Tax their procedures.25 Without Code regulatory “pervasive we find the Tax Code’s Code is not a point, provisions properties providing for ad scheme” administrative remedies governing purposes, procedures respect tax with its are exclusive with valorem method.) sec- opinions quote Humphrey, praised by That Code Both Com- such 21. ment, develop requires Comptroller tion also Antitrust Jurisdiction and Remedies in procedures to be used when Squeeze, methods Utility U. Chi. an Electric Price appraisers (1985). discount income from the future L.Rev. 1107 n. value, gas present and re- sale of oil quires appraisal offices to use methods provisions governing appraisal 22. Tax specified by Comptroller. procedures gas especially oil and are detailed. interests purpose Comptroller’s manual for 23.175, 1993, prescribes the Section added in appears at 34 Tex. Admin. Code 9.4031. average price of oil or manner which gas to be use in calculated for an 6.01, See, e.g., §§ 23. 41.01. gas place oil or a method that takes anticipated income into account the future 23.01, 41.07, See, e.g., §§ 41.47. gas produced. the sale oil or to be from (The taxing pleadings indicate that oil units' 41.01, See, seq. seq., §§ et et gas County ap- e.g., in Yoakum are interests *12 Int'l, by property owner. Inc. v. for relief in a suit units. See Cash America (Tex.2000) (re Bennett, 12, by the section taxing units note that 35 17 S.W.3d wording applicable only taxpayer ad its is suggested cent amendment to statute compa- no protests and the Code contains jurisdiction not intended to be ministrative exclusive). providing that 1, provision expressly rable 2004, January Effective sec are limited to the remedies taxing units appraiser tion 22.29 authorizes the chief by the provided Code. impose penalty fifty percent a tax of on a actions, commits in taxpayer who certain legisla Other courts have examined the cluding filing of a false rendition state tive intention behind section 42.09. See ment with the intent to commit fraud County Appraisal v. Robertson Watson taxing point evade tax. The units out that (Tex. Board, 307, Review 310 taxpayer’s liability determination of a un 1990, writ); -App.-Waco no Trans Valero 22.29(c) court, by der section is made a not Hays Indep. mission Co. v. Consol. Sch. review board. do not We Dist., 857, 1, 704 859 n. 861-62 S.W.2d agree that the addition of 22.29 section n.r.e.). 1985, (Tex.App.-Austin writ ref'd supports taxing argument. As opinions Those describe the efforts of tax out, point relators in specific provision payers prior interpose law to com under that section for court determination of lia mon law claims and remedies in ad valo- bility unnecessary would if taxing Watson, rem tax 795 at cases. See S.W.2d units were correct the Tax Code does 310; Transmission, at Valero preclude not common law actions for tax 1, Yudof, The generally 859 n. 861-62. See payer procedures. fraud outside the Code in Property Tax Texas Under State and Law, L.Rev., 885, 51 Tex. et Federal
The Tax language Code does not contain (1973). history, it seq. Given is like that in the former Motor Vehicle Com Legislature surprising specify would Subaru, mission Code26 discussed procedures that the remedies and Code S.W.3d at or that in the former Public taxpayers being By made exclusive. were Utility Regulatory Act27 discussed in En contrast, history pre- there is no under tergy, 142 at Sup.Ct. S.W.3d taxing appraising Code law of local bodies at J. which the administrative bod property assessing through taxes com expressly ies there involved given were of mon law causes of action. The absence original jurisdiction” “exclusive over mat units provision applicable taxing Code arising ters under those statutes. The comparable to section 42.09 is not evidence point out that only refer- legislative exempt intent the claims ence in Tax Code to the exclusiveness underlying units assert appears remedies section which adjudication through proce suit from Code prescribed procedures declares the for ad- dures. judication grounds of protest proper-
ty
owners authorized
the statute to be
Tax
leads
Our review the entire
Code
and,
exceptions, prohib-
exclusive
with two
comprehensive
us to conclude it is no less
a property
raising
its
owner from
those
respect
rights
to the
and duties
grounds in
defense to a suit for collection
units than those of
own-
ers,
delinquent
respect
taxes or as a basis of a claim
at least with
to the claims
Chapter
26. Now codified in
2301 of the Occu-
27. Now codified in the Utilities Code. See Tex.
1998)
(Vernon
pations
§
Code. See Tex. Occ.Code Ann.
Util.Code Ann.
32.001
(Vernon 2004)
(granting
original juris-
(providing
2301.151
board
commission exclusive
diction).
original jurisdiction).
with exclusive
in the
claims within the
underlying
body’s
units assert
suit.
over
example,
Tax
exclusive
and the court
Significantly,
jurisdiction,
must
provisions indicating
prejudice.
several
dismiss
claims without
contains
such
Subaru,
221;
America,
legislative
intent that
unit’s direct
Cash
process
hearing
involvement with
At the
on
brought by owner. Remedy by Appeal Adequacy of supreme Entergy, court
As the stated specific legislative expressions of intent jurisdic plea Denial of a jurisdiction a court’s may make exclusive been treated traditionally tion has as an 142 uncomplicated. at inquiry S.W.3d ruling, incidental trial court reviewable 321-23, at Sup.Ct. Despite 47 Tex. J. by petition of mandamus when for writ specific from the Tax Code of the absence remedy appeal. adequate there an of the language providing, so nature Walker, Textron, Inc. v. Bell Helicopter governmental through function exercised (Tex.1990); 787 955 Abor v. S.W.2d Code, the constitutional mandates the Tax Black, (Tex.1985); 566-67 S.W.2d comprehensive it and de- implements, its Helicopters, see 876 S.W.2d at Canadian concerning appraisal of provisions tailed parties to the mere cost provision and its of remedies property, appeal an do delay pursuing involved that the require combine to conclusion remedy inade appellate not render an procedures intended the Code Legislature 321-22, at quate. Entergy, 142 S.W.3d through means which to be the exclusive 731; Helicop Sup.Ct. J. at Canadian a remedy seek ters, supreme at 306. Our injuries them tortious con- caused mandamus, though, has when court issued here. alleged duct a trial jurisdiction by court the exercise of jurisdiction in the held Legislature given has face of exclusive
When work “a body administrative an would to an administrative exclusive orderly processes of clear disruption failure to all ad body, litigant’s exhaust Entergy, judi government.” seeking remedies before ministrative 321-22, citing J. at body’s Sup.Ct. 47 Tex. of the administrative cial review (Tex. Sewell, 716, 719 subject the court of matter State deprives action 1972). are 36 simi- Entergy, utility ratepay electric The record reflects there that, by entering brought alleging ers suit lar in other district courts of pending cases agreement, into an inconsistent later state, brought by taxing all units and our utility agreement had breached an common defendants. many involving proceeding providing called for rate cer Finding that the cases common involve savings tain rate to be filed the Public law, questions material of fact and Utility agreement Commission. Both the ju- presiding judges of the administrative ratepayers sought to enforce and the assigned them regions dicial involved have agreement approved by later had been pretrial judges pursuant to two to Rule implemented through or PUC PUC of the Rules of Judicial Administration. determining ders. Before that the Public Early resolution of the exclusive appellate *14 Utility Regulatory gave Act ex PUC in jurisdiction in this case aid issue jurisdiction dispute clusive over be adjudication of those cases and thus utility ratepayers, tween the and its help disruption processes minimize the appropri court discussed the issue of the government. relief, ateness of if noting mandamus jurisdiction exclusive, “per the PUC’s was together, expense Taken the burden of a trial mitting go forward would inter delay that would result from trial and important legislatively fere with the man case, appeal of the the interference with purpose dated function and of the PUC.” district and 321-22, Sup.Ct. 47 Tex. J. at presence board functions and the of a short, said, the court if the PUC involving number of other cases common dispute, had exclusive in the questions justify appeal the conclusion that judicial appropriation “the agency state remedy not an trial adequate authority disruption would be a clear failing grant court’s error of relators’ ” ‘orderly processes government.’ pleas jurisdiction. to the Id. The court disruption, concluded that coupled the hardship to the defendant
of postponing appellate juris review of the Conclusion issue, dictional warranted mandamus re conditionally grant petition We permitting lief. We conclude that trial to mandamus, directing writ of the trial court go of a brought by taxing forward case 3, 2004, May and to to vacate its order of units, judicial the end of which involves the underlying dismiss the suit. Confident re-appraisal properties of mineral for ad comply opinion, trial court with this will tax purposes,28 valorem would constitute only in not the event the trial court does no less of an interference with the function do so we direct this court’s Clerk to will purpose district and issue the writ. appraisal review board. present
There is here another factor REAVTS, J., argues concurring. in favor of mandamus relief. late-1990’s, et at. state in Corporation, through 28. ChevronTexaco to late-1980’s the mid- to a brief filed in this court that the units’ pleadings but we do not read their to limit only through suit late asserts claims arising by to those time. their claims petition 1990’s. The in the trial perceive units Nor do we that the have alleges point at one court that the transac- in this court characterized their claims through tions which relators conducted their being limited. so place fraudulent scheme took from the mid- Justice, Jr., Co., REAVIS, Balagia Litigation Mobil concurring. H. Oil DON Macedón, Houston, NY, Ashley, G. Luke allege the defen- Ballew, E. P. Jefferson Adrienne Domin- companies engaged conspiracy dant LLP, Dallas, guez, Thompson Knight, & prices posted and fraud fix for oil. III, McClure, Jasper Taylor Daniel M. G. However, they because did seek relief L.L.P., Fulbright & Jaworski James D. (h) 15.05(c)and 15.21 of under sections III, III, Thompson Max Hendrick Vinson Texas and Commerce Code Business L.L.P., Elkins Godfrey, & H. Lee Thomas Annotated, any expressing and without Paterson, Christopher W. William Carmo- may pro- opinion provisions whether these Merrill, dy, Apoda- R.H. Frank T. William remedy, I concur deci- vide them ca, Houston, LLP, Godfrey, Susman Rob- majority opinion. sion of the Duncan, Lowy, Alexandria, A. ert Peter LA, Hunt, Doss, M. Lawrence M. Donald L.L.P., Brown, Lubbock, Mullin Hoard & party for real interest. Moore, Brownfield,
Kelly respondent. G. *15 JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS Before CORPORATION, In re EXXONMOBIL CAMPBELL, JJ. al., et Relators. Corporation,
In re Chevrontexaco ON FOR ORDER MOTIONS al., et Relators. ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS 07-04-0285-CV, Nos. 07-04-0286-CV. CAMPBELL, Texas, JAMES T. Justice. Appeals Court Amarillo. 26, 2004, opin an August On we issued companion original judgment ion and Oct. each a writ of manda proceedings, seeking Ikard, Kilgarlin, W. William William Kelly directing mus the Honorable G. Ratliff, LLP, Austin, Ikard Popp Laurie & Court, Moore, judge of the 121st District Levy, Lynne Liberato, Haynes Ross Aleñe 3, 2004, County, May Yoakum vacate Boone, LLP, Benjamin Singletary, M. jurisdiction. denying pleas order In Silvestri, Cameron, & Dennis Lisa Gable Corporation, re No. 07-04- ExxonMobil Davis, Gotwals, Tulsa, OK, A. John ‘Jad’ 0285-CV; Corpora re ChevronTexaco Midland, Gerald, Davis & for rela- Turner tion, (Tex.App.-Amaril No. 07-04-286-CV tors. 2004) August (orig.proceeding). lo jurisdiction, court lacked Norwood, Finding Bledsoe & the trial Tighe E.R. Cotton PC, Zabel, Houston, petition for Dawson, conditionally granted we Catherine mandamus, Ratliff, the trial H. Patter- writ and directed Bracewell & Shannon Paulson, son, L.L.P., May court vacate its 3 order A. Ratliff Law Lisa opinion PLLC, Austin, III, underlying Our suit. Firm Ed Kliewer dismiss Kliewer, Garatoni, Breen, & stated this court’s Clerk would directed Patterson the trial Malone, Inc., Antonio, only in the event Rodney issue the writ San W. Sat- opinion. Stubbeman, comply terwhite, McRae, Sealy, court failed to Browder, Inc., Midland, Id. at Jack Laughlin &