Case Information
*1 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Bonorable Campbell K. Ford
County Attomuy
Ei Ez cz ,
Dear Sira
r's court otiewd valuation of all In ~tho aesemmentr.
The Board of Bquall- giving.notloe to the proper- aidng oi v8luatlon. Can the and Collsotor oolloot the l.nomssed tad IS not, oan he oolleot the tax aa it vas
valued for lg42t
'b. The Commlrrloner~o Court in 1932, b7 the eam methods, ordered the valuation of all - real estate out lO$. Thin vat3 done, and the pro- pert.7 decreased in valuation br 10s in the ~OWMIII- mento by the Tax Asoessor. There vere no objeotlons *2 Honorable C?Jnpbsll K. Foti, Page 2
by the property ovners. The property has been
rendered since that time at the value plaoed
after the lO$ cut. 3in00 the lO$ out was ll-
legal, can the Comlaalonerls court nov have
the property assessed at the value placed on
it prior to the time of the 10% dearease?
%y oplnlan to the Comlsrionerlm Court is attaohed hereto.
*2. In Hay, 1938, the Ccamlrsloner~r
Court ordered an eleotlon for the purposes of
voting on a bond lsrue on the entire county
for the purpose, of the Conatrmotlon, malnte-
nanoe ana operation of roads in San Saba coun-
ty, nedng la said order mane speolflo roadm
and bridges among which was a~brldge over the The eleotion was valid and parsed.
Bonds were’lasued and sold for the purpomea
stated io the order for eleotion and ballota.
Since the eleotlon, the oontingents upon vhloh
then bridge mentioned in the order for eleotlon
van to have been built have not been met and
the bridge will not be built. Does the Cosanls- aloner’s Court or the Ccnnmiseioaer for that
pwoluot have the authority to use iald money
for improvement, building, etc.,, of other roods
la that preclnat, or must the money be used
for paying off the bond6 lsaued~for that pur-
pose? Xy opinion to the Camlaslonerla court
is attached hereto.” “TO THE AOI’IO~ COWISSIO~‘S COURT OF BAN SABA coum!Y, TKxABt ‘QUEBTIOlp: May the Commlsmloaerla Court order the Tax Assessor to make a blanket raise
of the valuation of all real estate In this
&Et by 5$ in the amseaementr and colleot
in oreaae without giving the owners of the * .mal estate fomal notloe?
I Honorable Campbell K. Ford, Page 3
"The opinion of thin Offlae Is that the Cmmlaaloner's Court haa no authority to au-
thorize such a blenket raise In the valuatLon
of the real estate. Aa a matter of polio the
Cannalasloner*a Court ray aak.that the Pax $8 -
aeaaor vslue all real eatate at s more than
it has been valued in prior years If' he finds
that the property haa a greater market value
than th6 value piaaed on it by the aaseaarenta
of prior years. Article 7185, Vernon'r ~nno-
tated Civil 8tatutea. 1925. The 'pax Asreoaor
PUJ 60 value property, give notice to the ovner
of the property, and refer hzl.m to the Board of
Equalisatlon. Or the Commiaaioaert6 Court sit-
tlng a6 a Board of Bquallcatlon may raise the
value on real ertate if they find that the pro-
perty la not rendered at its falr market value
by giving the owner notloe thro h the County Clerk 05 the raise. Article , Vernon'8
Am. Civil Statutes, 1925.
"This offloe believes that the blanket raise of valuatkon of all real eatate would
endanger the collection of any tax upon the
property.
"QuXBTION: Can the lO$ out given in the valuation of real estate in 1932 be replaced
by an order the Cemalaaloaer@a Court l lnoe
said cut was not done aa authorized by the stat-
utes of the State of Texaa.
"This office believer that although the cut In 1932 vas not properly authorized, the fact that the property vaa ln 1933 and every
year slnoe that time assessed at the value of
1932, and In acme care6 raised or lovered,
doea not permit the Ccmmlaslonerta Court to
rescind the order giving the out or to jurt
replaoe the value of 1932. This office be-
lievea that the renditions made in 1933 6nd
subsequent years have estopped the acumlaslon- _ or's oourt from ralslng the valuation by pds-
oindlng said order, and that the valuation oaa
Honorable Campbell E. Ford, Page p raised aaoording to atatutea at thl.0
. 90 5EOxonABL?s comassIomR'8 COVRT OP 3Mw3A00lmlT,TxAar aQUZSTIOXt hy the QaQPlaaloner of Pre-
L olaot lo. 2uae thewaey ralaedby selling t OS boa4 Issue tar tho purpose of building a
/ brim aaroaa the Qolorado $lver at lorthveat
# for tha building 6tha lmprovaeata of roads in thatpnolnotvhmtb bon4 laaua vu totad
i upon enA the brldga over the Ooloruh~ River i vu l peolflea a a 8putof tha us0 of thoband I laaue la tha ardor l lootlon, notloe of l lee- [
tlon, eleotlon ballots, and the retunu o? tha eleotlonT
!, <
.'The opinion of this offlo* la that vlkara 86 in this oaae tha order of rleotlon 0x3 tha
band laaue, aotloe of l lootlon, eleotlon bal- lots aiatin0tl~ that $lO,OOO.OO o? the stated
bond laaw was to ba used Sor the purpose of
building a brld@ wroaa the Colomdo River
in Horthveat OaawmL$y, tha money mat bkuaed that purpose and for no other purpose.
The Saot that the order ?or eleotlon, l to.,
alatinotly stated that this awuat of the pro-
oeeda OS the sale of tha boada vu to be wea
ror this purpoao made a ooatnot betvoen the
eleotorate ma the Ccmmlaalowr~a Qourt (W?lght v. Allen, civ. App., su 980). Therafom
this money murt be used to ereot a bridge or Into the treasury to pay of? that wu3kha
mayor thebonda." vo are of tha oplnlon that you h8ve ubatantlally dated the lav in your oplnhn to the Ccmil.aalonoral.Court of your county upon the matorlal quoatlona involved. Wo ah&l, hovavor, state our naaaha in support of this OoBOlU-
. .
Hanor8ble Nmpbell K. Ford, Page 5
Ylthout oovering the rotters ln detail, they ara
briefly as r0imf6t
The propwe ovaor la uoorded the right, aua it
la primarily his au , to raador his property ror tu8tion ; rooordlng to the nuonablo mah m (Art. n89, V.&O.& "3 kot valw at tha tlw auoh renditlanj ii th6 Aaaoaaor la aatla?ledtlbat the value is belov the ouh narkot value, he shall plaoo,on arid randltlon o oalto l aoh pieoo of pawpa-.
ty the rauonablo ouh m&sot v w, ii no market v&w, the raal or, lntrinalo valw, of auoh property at tba fiu of auah raadltlon: ii tha ewaer is not l atlaflod rith tha valwa‘tbw proposed by tha Aaaeaaor, tha omaor may ha*0 l ttwho4 to hi* portlaghla rubditlon, hir, a readltlom l ~awo ra l tatmont ion to x6 to ba nferro6 vith his raull OaPlraloaora~ Oourt (Bomd of huallzatlon) aad tha o ourt shall hear l vlbencw'and do~aine~t~v~wuofJIIlOarJl,~inr~~
valw the &aeaaor or the oourt shall take into aooouat what beon sold for uty rithb s.2 raid proport 00ula hwo tiw zloJ3tha ,wxt L Son the first day OS Jumary (Art. Tell, V.A.
0.8.). Ar$loZe 7212 V.A.a.8. deilnoa mora ddlnite4 tb to b w th0 Borrd or Bqtllcrlisfbtion irr pr00crdore r0n0~0a 0arrySq out tho purpoaea 0s tho pro0 72u. uo Ire1010 think these art10106 0s the statute, oona rulag thm to ““e ther, daal~vlth madltloaa made by tha omar of v&lob ha at aE timea haa notloe and an opportunity to ba h4ard. By ths ox- press terns of Artiole 7212 V.A.C.S. auoh datemlnatlon Es to value by the Bosra 0s Bquallzatloa la rimi.
It ~16 fUrthor provldod unaer oertaln oondltloaa meathneil la Artioloa 7X+2-7193 V.A.C.B., naaaly vhea tha property owaer has nfiiaed or nogleoted to render hla proper- tr to t&a tha oath praaoribaa in Art1010 7188, tha &area- aor shall fix* the valw aad wko the 8aaeaawat.
Thls brings us to tba autlea of the Oazmlaalonera~ Court ar a Board of Equalization provided for ln Artlolo 7206 The pertinent mectlona we quoto as rollova~ V.A.C.8.
"1. They ahall oauso the aa8eaaor to bring before them at anoh meeting all ~+ld aaaeaaaent llata, b o o ks, l to., lnapootloa, and so* thrt every poraoa has reader04 his property at a fmi? *6 Xanozuble Oawboll K; Ford, Prgo
aarkot value, and shall hsvo powor to read for poraoma, books aad p-8, alfoar md Qwllfy th e ~81~0 awh l ruw, to r& r o per aaoe , andtolovor or nlao tho nlw an &a aaato~ K '2; Thor w iwo peror to aorrut ox- rora In uaoaaod8.
- _ - y5; Wenevor,aald board shall find it their In tha oountr, than l-q peatlng a wvltten or rlatoa not100 La oaah jwfioa~a-pnalaet, ona of WI3 ShEuat ba at thmoourt houao qeoe
2lnae yuurawatlandeala ~tiththopoworto ralao ralnatl~, whether it bo by tho Aaaoaaor or thm Bomd of Bpud.lmtl0n, uo oao to uuwoP fauc Chat qwatlon~
T h e Omnlaaloaera~ Court as l wh, ha8 a0 authotity, as you oorreot stat0 to lnatruot the Tu Aaaoaaor to aa- all p ory5$higherthanrendeqd~ablankotin- Y , or at any other valuation. rna00a, thorn is a0 oreaao 0r l awWtutla arl or l tatato ry l uthOr%ty l utho rla~ tha Oamia- lcmeraa Mart to &to say lnstruotianm to the Tu Aaaoaaor by blank& order or othervlao to raise orlovor valwtims~ *7 Bonorablo Ompbell~. Ford, page If th0 dtI0n fixed w th8 kxp8mr, 0~ by pnrorIbed bp lihen, undor the aondItlon8
the Aue8ror, 8t8tUt0, th. ,&8U880? 18 8UthOCidti t0 fix th0 Y&h8 Uld uke the u8e888Wxt, It 18 propo8ed w th. BOu’d of pclru- and 088e88- li88tiOli t0 llki8e tb0 Y&W Of 8UOh renditiOU ment, It out ualp be done after due notloe to the t.ucpe~- or or proportf owner u provided In Ileotlon 5 of Artiole 7PO6 noted dove.
It 3.8 obrerved that by foroe of thI8 8tatute the i.8 required OOLtIk~ OlWk t0 &Ye t&3 ~l'8OZl VhO8h UIe88- Rat Of hi8 ?Op@l?~ ii 8OU&ht t0 be rcri$Od bJ th6 baud P on vrltten notloe of the intezitlon of tha Board of Kqwliut ln the PreRlu8. or 8UOh notloe i8 the Ruaner or rervlee pad ve think the law 10 tb8t rhare no 8eOiel not provfded I8 8peoified, pe?8OIAd I ~&hod Of 8e?YiOe nOtiOe iiOOnb~- lb0 Texas JurIaprudenoe, Qa5puly 1. noc1uro 239 8.V.
t n&lot, be in rrlting RU8t be permwl. Au y r othod of penonal notloe, l ltber b p mall, semioe by the 8herIff or oomtable, or by a
Oitl8ell; 18 h.Otl? O~iniolr 8UffIOiOnt If It @00-l
purpore of perwm8l rervioe.
it 8dd in tb8 08U Of 8Wflill.g Y8. 8Ui &tOltiO 39 8.w. 918 bp the 8Up?8W cOU?t U fOiiOV8C broughtbf th8 oitp of &n %i8 8tdtVa8
AntonI to zwoover of WIllIm HoeflIng oertain at hiR iOr. tb8 fi8Oti TW tUe8 U8e88ed emJLlng Pebruaq 28, 18% He did not render w th&,Off- de: tU l 88&880r, plld Va8 vol\ud . Flu ‘board of appeal end mvirlon, vith- SIR notloe, dnoruud the v8lu8tIaaa out giving oertaln hi8 real ertate, but left pal%elr tht plaoed by th8 088e88Or upon Other paroelo, *8 Honorable Campbell K. Ford, Page 8
88 veil as that put upon him personal proper- ty, untouched. The oitp reaovered a jument I! In the trial court all the taxea olaimed by Iti that Is to any, It reoovered upon the
I baslm of the lnoreared valuation made M ‘the
board of appeal and revirlon.’ Upon appeal to the court of 01~11 appeal6 that judgnent vaa reformed, and a judgment var given for the city for the taxes upon the property only VhIoh had been valued by the uuuor, end upon vhIah the valtition had not been inore88ed by the board. On appeal to the oourt of olvll appeal8 the contention of the aity vaa that under the oharter of the olty, when property va8 unren- dared, vhether the ovner vas knovn or not knovn~ lt wan the duty of the a88es8or to list It mere- ly, and not to value It, and that the raluatlon :: In the first Inntame was to be fixed by *the board of appeal and revIsIon,~ and that, there- t fore, the valuation OS the assessor vas without
effeot, and the board had the paver to value the propertj without notloe to the ovner. The oourt civil appeals, hovever, held that, where pro- perty In the city vas not rendered, and the ovn- er vaa kDovn, It was the duty of the aa8e88or, not only to list It ln the name of the owner, but also to value It for taxation, and that the board had no power to increase that value with- out glvlng notioe to me owner. We oonour in not opinion . . . .”
fotloe to tpe taxpayer and hla consequent right to be heard la a necesearp prerequisite to the jurlrdiction of the Board of Equallzatlon under the general purpose of ‘due process’, but momover Is 8peOifiOallp required under the ex- press terms 0s the statute. Highland Park Independent 8chool Dintriot Of Dallacl County, et al va. Republic Ineuranoe Cool- pany 80 S.W. (26) 1053. It follovr, therefore, that the blan- ket order of the commls8ioners’ court of San Saba County rals- lng the valuatlone five per oent on all property vlthout writ- ten notioe to eaoh lndlvldual property omer, glvlng him an opportunity to be heard Is void and of no effeot. Proper notice not having been given, the Board was vithout power, jurisdiotlm, raising the taxpayers valuationa by the method proposed 80 as to effect hie llablllty for taxes.
xonomble Campbell K. Ford, Page 9
If, hovever, the taxpayer capuleroen In an in- orea8e In the valuation of hI8 property * or mor8 and make8 It hia renditionhe vouldbebound thersbysnd It would oaustltute a leg41 be818 for the a88ewaeat and oolleotlop 0s hIr taxe8, and thir regardlers vhether he had preview WtIOe Of the ?a180 or not. But If the b?UpayW doe8 not rdopt such XWI80 in YaluatIOn a8 ht.8 rendltlan, notloe and oomequent right to be tird be- for4 the Board 0s BqualIsatIan 18 8 neoerrary pnroqui- site for th4 Ebrrd of Bqu4liratI4n to raI8e hi8 read& tiorl; In rush ea8e If the required not109 b4 not gIvenlr, the rendition We by the taxpayer or by th4 as8e84er under ths oondItIon8 authorizing him to fix the value snd 888088 aOOO?dh&, Y0d.d aaMtitUt0 the legal bs83.8 fo r th e l 88e88ment and oolleotioa of his tares. Eofheln8 v; city 8an Antonio, Iuprai
We deem It equally true from wbrrt Ye h8Ye 8ald above that any order 0s the oanmI88lonera ( oourt reioend- I, i.ng th8 blanket order of 1932 nduofng the valuatl~~~of all r8al 8tate to ten per oent would b4 YoId 4nd 0s no effeot a8 a netbad of restoring q valu8tIon8 48 488u8- aentr th8 present year of 1913. In ge;81tl;r 8tatut.e prosreribel tha method 0s fix
vhIah tXUe8 are t0 be 488e88ed and 00 eoted snd thi8 Bethod, in QU? epinion, vould be 48 equally invalid the fir& We aou pa88 to
t eot to the authority '0s t.r OC4lWi88i’%W?B ’ OOlll’t t0 pI(I 8000&i QIe8tiQIl vi.th lyt8-
an4 money voted for the emotion of a brldgo for other ImproYement8 nOtIpeoIfI4all~ inuludedin the
SO? vhloh the bond8 vere voted; Your 4dYioe to YA8fzb mi88iQMl-8' OOUl't OOr?Wt ud YO do IlOt deem it MOeI-
e ttpoa It and the authority olted by you, en 25-f 8.Y; 980, 8mO?t8 YOUI! pQaitiQn.
We trust that the obave answer8 your pue8tionr.i LPLrff