Jay Khadem v. State of Texas, County of Bexar, City of San Antonio, and Edgewood Independent School District--Appeal from 73rd Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-03-00559-CV
Jay KHADEM,
Appellant
v.

COUNTY OF BEXAR, City of San Antonio,

Edgewood Independent School District, and San Antonio Independent School District,

as successor in interest to Bexar County Education District,

Appellees
From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2002-TA1-1888
Honorable Frank Montalvo, Judge Presiding (1)

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 26, 2004

AFFIRMED

This is a restricted appeal from a judgment awarding several taxing entities (2) delinquent ad valorem taxes against Jay Khadem. The judgment also ordered foreclosure of the property upon which the taxes were owed. Further, the trial court adjudged the value of the property at $300,000.00. On appeal, Khadem, appearing pro se, contends the trial court erred in its valuation of the property. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Restricted Appeal Standard of Review

In order to attack the trial court's judgment by restricted appeal, the appeal must: (1) be brought within six months after the date of judgment; (2) by a party to the suit; (3) who did not participate in the trial; and (4) error must be apparent from the face of the record. See Quaestor Invs. Inc. v. Chiapas, 997 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex. 1999); Campbell v. Fincher, 72 S.W.3d 723, 724 (Tex. App.--Waco 2002, no pet.). Khadem was a party to the suit and filed his notice of appeal within six months after the date of judgment. Further, Khadem did not participate in the trial. Thus, we must determine if error is apparent from the face of the record.

Discussion

In a single issue on appeal, Khadem contends the trial court erred in its valuation of the property as shown by the judgment. Khadem emphasized that when he purchased the property in 1999 at a Commissioner's Sale, the advertised fair market value was $67,000.00. Thus, according to Khadem, the $300,000.00 appraisal the following year was unrealistic and not the fair market value. However, with regard to valuation of the property, all that is apparent from the face of the record is an "Affidavit of Taxes Due," certifying the attached documents as copies of the current or delinquent tax rolls for the property the subject of this suit. The tax rolls value the property at $300,000.00.

Section 33.50(a) of the Tax Code provides,

In a suit for foreclosure of a tax lien on property, the court shall determine the market value of the property on the date of trial. The appraised value of the property according to the most recent appraisal roll approved by the appraisal review board is presumed to be its market value on the date of trial, and the person being sued has the burden of establishing that the market value of the property differs from that appraised value. The court shall incorporate a finding of the market value of the property on the date of trial in the judgment

Tex. Tax Code Ann. 33.50(a) (Vernon 2001) (emphasis added); see also N. W. Conference v. Happy Indep. Sch. Dist., 839 S.W.2d 140, 144 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1992, no pet.) (stating that in a suit for foreclosure of a tax lien, the market value of the property stated on the most recent appraisal roll is presumed to be the market value on the date of trial). The trial court did exactly what the tax code requires; in the absence of any controverting evidence, the court valued the property at $300,000.00 as reflected by the tax appraisal rolls. Thus, there being no error apparent from the face of the record with regard to valuation of the property as set forth in the judgment, we overrule Khadem's sole issue on appeal. (3)

Conclusion

Having overruled Khadem's sole issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Karen Angelini, Justice

1. The Honorable Andy Mireles is the presiding judge of the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The Honorable Frank Montalvo signed the judgment.

2. The plaintiff taxing authorities were the State of Texas, County of Bexar, suing on its own behalf and on behalf of all political subdivisions whose taxes are collected by the Bexar County Tax Collector, the City of San Antonio, and Edgewood Independent School District.

3. We note that Khadem filed a supplemental brief containing his own rendition of the facts surrounding this suit along with various other documents and letters. Because these matters were not before the trial court at the time of the hearing, however, we cannot consider them. Campsey v. Campsey, 111 S.W.3d 767, 771 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).