Wesley F. Honza, Jr. v. Brazos County Appraisal District, et al.--Appeal from 361st District Court of Brazos County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-94-196-CV

WESLEY F. HONZA, JR.,

Appellant

v.

BRAZOS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, ET AL.,

Appellees

From the 361st District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court # 37,451-361

O P I N I O N

Wesley F. Honza, Jr. appeals from an order dismissing his petition for review of the Brazos County Appraisal District's determination of the appraised value of his property. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. 41.41, 42.21 (Vernon 1992). The court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over Honza's suit. By one point of error, he argues that the court erred because he filed his petition within forty-five days of his actual receipt of the notice of a final order from the Brazos County Appraisal Review Board. See id. 41.47(d), 42.21(a). However, because Honza failed to timely file a statement of facts from the hearing on the motion to dismiss we cannot say that the court erred in finding that it did not have jurisdiction.

In June 1992, the District notified Honza that it was increasing the appraised value of a mineral interest he owns in Brazos County. See id. 25.19. Honza protested the increased value before the Review Board. See id. 41.41(1). After a hearing, the Review Board rejected his protest and affirmed the District's valuation of the mineral interest. See id. 41.47. Honza filed a petition for review on September 9, 1992. See id. 42.21(a).

The District responded by filing a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, arguing that Honza waited to long to file his petition. See id.; Appraisal Review Board v. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, 719 S.W.2d 160, 160-61 (Tex. 1986). After a hearing, the court granted the District's motion, ruling that Honza "failed to meet the requirements of 42.41(a) of the Texas Property Tax Code." The court signed the order dismissing the cause on April 19, 1994.

Honza perfected this appeal by filing a cash deposit as security for costs on May 18. See Tex. R. App. P. 40(a)(1), 41(a)(1). Although he timely filed the transcript, the statement of facts from the hearing was not filed by June 20, the due date for the record. See id. 5(a), 54(a). Nor did he timely file a motion for an extension of time to file the statement of facts. See id. 54(c). Finally, on November 16, Honza filed the statement of facts, accompanied by a motion for an extension of time to file it. See id. However, because we do not have the authority to grant a motion for extension of time when it is untimely, we denied his motion. See id. 83; Texas Instruments v. Teletron Energy Mgt., 877 S.W.2d 276, 278 (Tex. 1994). Thus, Honza is prosecuting this appeal without the benefit of a statement of facts from the hearing. See Tex. R. App. P. 54(a); Office of Public Utility v. P.U.O.T., 878 S.W.2d 598, 599-600 (Tex. 1994).

Honza, as the appellant, has the burden of presenting a sufficient record to show reversible error. See Tex. R. App. P. 50(d). The court granted the District's motion which alleged the factual ground that Honza failed to file his petition timely. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. 42.21(a). To demonstrate error in the court's fact-based judgment, reference must be had to the evidence presented. See Segrest v. Segrest, 649 S.W.2d 610, 611 (Tex.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 894, 104 S. Ct. 242, 78 L. Ed. 2d 232 (1983). Absent a statement of facts, we must presume that the evidence introduced at the hearing supports the court's order. See Schafer v. Conner, 813 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex. 1991). All necessary findings of fact to sustain the court's judgment are implied. See Zac Smith & Co. v. Otis Elevator Co., 734 S.W.2d 662, 666 (Tex. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1063, 108 S. Ct. 1022, 98 L. Ed. 2d 986 (1988). Thus, absent a complete record, Honza is unable to show that the court erred when it granted the District's motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

Therefore, we overrule Honza's sole point of error and affirm the court's order. //

BOBBY L. CUMMINGS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed July 26, 1995

Do not publish