*1 98
tracks the
of the Craddock deci
three-quarters years.
three and
During
However,
appeals
sion.
the courts of
time,
period
both the
presi
former
applying the
rules
Craddock
to the fact
Champion
dent of
and the attorney who
situations before them have found
of
filed the suit died.
judgment
The default
necessary
ten it is
for the defendant
to was not taken until after their deaths. The
plaintiff
offer to
reimburse
absence of these two as witnesses will
obtaining
costs involved in
their default
equal if
greater
cause an
burden to be
judgment
injury
in ordеr to
an
avoid
to the
placed on the defendant. The defendants
plaintiff.
Sullivan,
e.g.
See
Zonker v.
650
delay
did not and could not
taking
of a
1983,
(Tex.App.
S.W.2d 189
Paso
writ
— El
judgment;
upon
default
it is incumbent
n.r.e.);
Producers,
ref’d
United
Inc.
Beef
plaintiff
pursue
its
Additionally,
suit.
it
(Tex.Civ.
Lookingbill,
v.
528
310
S.W.2d
Angelo
should be noted that
expressed App.
1975)
per
writ
cu
— Amarillo
ref'd
willingness to
Champion
reimburse
riam 532 S.W.2d
Additionally,
958
expenses
argument
their
at oral
at
in order
delay,
that there is no
the courts
appeals
court of
and in their brief to us.
have looked
favorably upon
more
defend
Co.,
Pardee,
See Dallas Heating
Inc. v.
ready, willing
go
ants
and able to
trial
561 S.W.2d
expenses
16. These
are within
almost immediately. See
v. Nation
Nava
knowledge
plaintiff
the exclusive
Corp.,
wide Financial
Pardee,
(Tex.Civ.App
achieved is to not or
unduly delay by granting the motion. Lines, Inc.,
Craddock v.
Bus
Sunshine
us,
delayed seeking trial on the merits
trict enjoin body removing from process from appraising property the in County. Galveston Wilson maintained that the Texas Constitution authorized the coun- ty appraise proper- tax assessor-collector to ty purpоses for ad valorem tax and that the provisions Property pur- Tax Code porting grant the district ulti- authority appraisal process mate over the were unconstitutional. The trial court de- injunctive nied Wilson’s claim for relief and challenged held provi- constitutional the Property sions of the Tax Code. We af- firm. districts,
Appraisal such as the Galveston District, County Appraisal po- Central are state, litical subdivisions of the created in Code, Property charged the Tax and with responsibility appraising property “for in pur- the district for ad valorem tax poses.” TEX.PROP.TAX CODE ANN. 6.01(b) (Vernon 1982). With certain ex- here, ceptions pertinent each district extends to the boundaries of the governed and is a board of di- appointed by rectors vote of the imposing proper- units ad taxes valorem on ty in thе TEX.PROP.TAX CODE (Vernon 1982). ANN. 6.02 and 6.03 §§ tax on the hand, other is a constitutional office estab- VIII, in lished Article Section provides that such officer perform re- ... shall all the duties with Griffin, Anthony (Anthony P. Griffin P. spect assessing property pur- for Inc.), Olsen, Galveston, Susan Baker for taxes, pose colleсting and of taxation appellant. prescribed by legislature. as be Hewitt, Benjamin R. Powel and Otto D. Although Art. TEX.CONST. III, McLeod, Alexander, Apffel, Powel & power appraise expressly is not men- Galveston, appellees. for in it has tioned Article Section implied pаrt been as a of the assessor-col- McGEE, Justice. duty lector’s to assess. TEX.ATT’Y.GEN. appeal. This is a direct TEX.R.CIV.P. L.A.-117 power 499a. The issue is whether Prior to the enactment of the property County in Galveston for Code, authority levying an ad purposes ap- ad valorem liеs with county possessed, valorem tax praisal district or the tax assessor- exercised, powers of ordinarily independent collector. This resulted assessment and collection. Wilson, usually inconsist- system multiple Chuck Tax Assessor-Collector impetus for against appraisals provided County, Galveston filed suit ent in this state. County Appraisal property Central Dis- tax reform reform, turn, produced charged an amend- state and them with the re- calling sponsibility appraising ment to the constitution a sin- in the gle, county-wide appraisal property. district. TEX.PROP.TAX CODE ANN. (Vernon 1982). 6.01
It Article 18 which was Section was read, 1979, however, pertinent part: Proper- amended to As enacted require join Tax Code did not counties to (b) single appraisal A within each although they districts were property subject of all to ad valo- *3 encouraged join majority to and the vast county rem and all taxation the other join. initially exempted did Counties were pro- units therein located shall be Attorney opinion because of a 1976 General Legislature, by general The vided law. which advised that the tax assessor-collec- law, by general appraisals authorize power proper- tor’s constitutional to assess political outside a when subdivi- power included both the to and sions are situated in more than one coun- power the to determinе the amount of tax ty or when two or more counties elect to impose. to TEX.ATT’Y.GEN. L.A.-117 appraisal consolidate services. (1976). perhaps A concern arose that Arti- VIII, 18(b). (Empha- Art. TEX.CONST. VIII, granted 14 counties cle Section the added). general passed by sis The law the right аppraisal to do their own work. Legislature codify single appraisal to the concern, VIII, 18(b) Leg- In the concept of Article was the order to resolve this islature, passage Property concurrent with the of the Tax Code. Code, 621, passed House Proрerty Tax S.B. argues provisions of Wilson that certain proposed the amend- Joint Resolution Property the Tax Code are unconstitutional VIII, the ment Article Section 18 of to usurp they because his traditional role proposed purpose of Constitution. prоcess. argument His appraisal the single apprais- require amendment was to (1) VIII, premises: based on two Article single equalization of within al and a board 14, impliedly grants power to Section purposes tax for ad valorem appraise property pur- for ad valorem tax thereby compel those counties (2) poses, and Article Section 18 does appraisal districts to already joined had not power away, simply man- not take that but give up separate systems appraisal of their single In apрraisal. dates a order to har- Legislative Coun- equalization. Texas powers the monize his constitutional cil, Analysis Proposed Constitutional single appraisal concept, Wilson concludes Amendments, Report No. 80-1 Information the tax assessor-colleсtor must be (1980); Group, Special Report Study House charge single apprais- the officer in of the No. 61 Property the scheme of the Tax al. Under Code, must serve as this means Wilson Following peoples’ approval the the appraisal appraisеr” “chief district. amendment, Legislature constitutional disagree. We codified the passed House Bill 30 which concept Article single appraisal of amended legislative
Neither the nor the 18(b). prior had As it done Section legisla- reform history property of the tаx Code, Tax Property of the the enactment It was supports tion Wilson’s contentions. and re- Legislature again considered Representative Wayne that State legislation similar to Wilson’s jected proposal first introduced a to revise Peveto tax as- рresent contention—that system. state’s Succeed- should be the officer sessor-collector Legislature considered ing sessions proper- single appraisal of all charge proposals, until revisions of Peveto’s 621, enacting ty subject to ad valorem Bill 1979 Senate pp. Tex., Leg., Reg.Sess. 67th Code, H.J. of passed houses and was See Tax both (1981); Study Group Re- House 2433-2529 signed by governor. previously As 602 & mentioned, “ap- port, Analysis, Bill Tex.H.B. legislation created (1981); Study House Leg., Reg.Sess. 67th political subdivisions of praisal districts” as Group Repоrt, Analysis, County. Bill Tex.H.B. (1981); Leg. Code, however, 1st Called Debate clearly
67th Sess. confines the selec- House, Tex.H.B. 30 on the Floor appraiser” tion “chief and tenure of the 3, 1981) Leg., (Aug. 1st Called 67th Sess. the discretion of the district (cassette tape). passage With the of H.B. board of directors. TEX.PROP.TAX exemption previously applicable (Vernon 6.05(c) 1982). CODE ANN. We repealed was appraisals, counties and all provision have found no constitutional including county, those of the were central- which limits the district’s discre- in one authority, ized district. tion in this mаtter. Assuming a constitutional amendment judgment the trial court is af- necessary separate “appraisal” was firmed. express assessing from function of the county tax the amend- KILGARLIN, J., RAY, J., joined by dis- ment Article Section 18 accom- sents. plishes construing this. In the Texas Con- *4 stitution, it is “to duty our ascertain and Justice, KILGARLIN, dissenting. give effect to plain language intent and I respectfully It is a of framers of a constitutional amend- dissent. tortured best, people adopted reading, ment and of the who at of it.” the amendment to Tex. Const, Gragg 18, v. Cayuga Independent School to Dis- art. conclude that it trict, 861, (Tex.1976). 539 S.W.2d In strips from elected officials their constitu- 18(b) unequivocal language, Section directs obligation “perform tional to all the duties Legislature provide single ap- to for a assessing respect with to Const, praisal county. within Legisla- each purpose of ...” Tex. taxation art. enacting has done by ture Further, I seriously 14. doubt that appraisal Code which creates districts Texans, strong with a tradition since Re- charges county in each them with the servants, electing public construction of responsibility for appraising property with- would the 1980 approved have amendment in their districts. 18, to had they article section known subsequently interpreted that it would be provides ap- Tax Code duly to mean people’s that the elected tax praisal district with twо alternative meth- assessor would producing single, and collector be substituted ods a district-wide appraisal by appraisal public insulated from property. The district boards appraisal scrutiny. either establish an office adminis- by appraiser” appоinted tered a “chief by ballot, read: “The constitu directors, the board of it may or contract requiring single ap tional amendment a taxing perform with a unit in the district to praisal single equalization and a board of the duties of appraisal office in which pur within ad valorem tax the head of case unit serves as poses.” Leg., 66th 1979 Tex. H.J.R. appraiser.” “chief TEX.PROP.TAX CODE Nothing Gen.Laws 3229. 6.05(b) (c) (Vernon 1982). ANN. Un- remotely suggests that the tax assessor 1986, the County Ap- til Central perform ap and collector would that praisal operated District under this latter рraisal. that one of the It is fundamental Wilson, using alternative assessing respect property is duties with to assessor-collector, appraiser.” as “chief to first it. appraisal
When the announced its district wrought by the court’s What we have intentions to sever contrаctual ties with the faceless, opinion today give name- apprais- and to select a new “chief boards, responsible less electorate er,” present Wilson filed the action con- way, he, only a most indirect circuitous tending only duly that elected сoun- stamp approval a to continue to escalate was constitution- appraised ally appraise property authorized to to irrational levels evaluations within peo- in excess of the far market value of ple’s repre- If nо homes. taxation without HAMMETT, Appellant, Leon Arnold popular sentation was a little theme a over years ago, surely
two hundred no representation without a should share sim- Texas, Appellee. The STATE of today. ilar accolade No. 333-85. Although the analyzes court laws enact- subsequent Appeals Texas, Court Criminal ed amendment to article VIII, section En Banc. justify an effort to its holding, appellee Appraisal District con- tends that the tax assessor and collector
has denuded been of his duties
solely on the basis of the constitutional
amendment. obligation
This court has an read
harmony provisions of the Constitution. by single simply requiring
We can do so per- within each to be
formed the tax and collector assessor I would reverse the trial judgment.
court’s
RAY, J., joins this dissent.
Elsie STANGA
CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE
SOCIETY.
No. C-5225.
Supreme Court of Texas. parties motion of the to dismiss the
Joint granted. is judgments
cause cause
courts below are set aside and the
dismissed as moot without reference appeal.
merits of the