City of Franklin, et al v. Bernard K. Box, Individually and d/b/a Cen Tex Agricultural Supply--Appeal from 82nd District Court of Robertson County

City of Franklin v. Box /**/

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-92-288-CV

 

CITY OF FRANKLIN, ET AL.,

Appellants

v.

 

BERNARD K. BOX, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A

CEN TEX AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY,

Appellee

 

From the 82nd District Court

Robertson County, Texas

Trial Court # 5712

 

O P I N I O N

 

The City of Franklin, the Franklin Independent School District, and Robertson County (Appellants) filed suit against Bernard Box, individually and d/b/a Cen Tex Agricultural Supply, for recovery of delinquent ad valorem taxes. The taxes had been assessed and levied on personal property owned by Box for the years 1984 through 1989.

After a bench trial, the court granted judgment in favor of Appellants for delinquent ad valorem taxes. However, the court lowered the appraised value of property located on "Tract 1" for the years 1984-1986 and waived the penalties and interest. Appellants filed a motion for new trial, which was denied by operation of law. No findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested and none were filed.

Appellants appeal on four points. Points one and three assert that the court did not have jurisdiction and that it committed fundamental error in reducing the assessments and waiving the penalties for late payment of taxes. Because of our disposition of points two and four, we do not reach points one and three.

In point two, appellants complain that the court erred in rendering judgment lowering the taxable value of Box's property because the evidence was insufficient to sustain an implied finding of fact of excessive value. In point four, they complain that the court erred in waiving the accrued penalties and interest on the delinquent ad valorem taxes because the evidence was insufficient to sustain such an implied finding.

The Property Tax Code created appraisal districts in each Texas county, investing the districts with authority to appraise all property within their counties for ad valorem taxation. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. 6.01 (Vernon 1992). The Code provides an administrative process for determining property valuations and collecting taxes due. Id. 21.01-34.23 (Vernon 1992). It also prescribes procedures for a property owner to protest tax liability prior to court action. Id. 41.01-41.70 (Vernon 1992). A property owner dissatisfied with the appraised property value must protest the valuation before the appraisal review board. See id. 41.41. After an administrative hearing before the appraisal review board, a dissatisfied property owner may seek judicial review of the board's decision in the district court. Id. 42.01-42.43 (Vernon 1992).

Section 42.09(a) of the Tax Code states:

[P]rocedures prescribed by his title for adjudication of the grounds of protest authorized by this title are exclusive, and a property owner may not raise any of those grounds:

(1) in defense to a suit to enforce collection of delinquent taxes; or

(2) as a basis of a claim for relief in a suit by the property owner to arrest or prevent the tax collection process or to obtain a refund of taxes paid.

Id. 42.09(a). The remedies provides by the Code for protest and appeal of property tax disputes are exclusive. See id; D & M Vacuum Service, Inc. v. Zavala County, 812 S.W.2d 435, 437 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1991, no writ); Dallas Co. Appraisal Dist. v. Lal, 701 S.W.2d 44, 46 (Tex. App. Dallas 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Brooks v. Bachus, 661 S.W.2d 288, 289 (Tex. App. Eastland 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Texas courts have consistently held that the failure of a property owner to comply with any of the Code provisions precludes a right to judicial review. See Adams v. Kendall County Appraisal Dist., 724 S.W.2d 871, 875 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1986, no writ); Lal, 701 S.W.2d at 46; Brooks, 661 S.W.2d at 289.

Box concedes that he failed to comply with the formal administrative-review process. However, he contends that the appraisal district's valuation was grossly excessive and thus void, citing City of Waco v. Conlee Seed Co., Inc., 449 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. 1969) (taxpayer's constitutional claims for grossly excessive valuation allowed although the taxpayer had not first sought review before the board of equalization). Conlee Seed was decided prior to the enactment of the Property Tax Code, which established the uniform system of administrative review. See Lal, 701 S.W.2d at 47. We cannot agree that Conlee Seed controls. See id.

Box's failure to comply with the administrative-review procedures of the Tax Code constituted a failure to exhaust his administrative remedies and precluded his asserting a defense of grossly excessive valuation. See id. at 46; Tex. Tax Code Ann. 42.09(a). Because section 42.09 precludes a property owner from asserting any grounds of protest in defense of a suit to collect delinquent taxes, the court erred in reducing the assessments. See Tex. Tax Code Ann.. 42.09(a). Because the assessments were not subject to challenge, neither the amounts of the taxes due nor the statutory penalties and accrued interest were subject to challenge. See id. We sustain points two and four.

The evidence shows that the taxing entities are entitled to recover the following amounts on Tract 1 property:

YEAR

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

Total taxes

Interest/penalties

Attorney's fees

 

Robertson Co.

$285.40

$224.90

$183.26

$208.42

$208.01

$1109.99

$655.98

$35.88

 

City of Franklin

$138.30

$200.00

$204.00

$190.40

-0-

$732.70

$494.88

-0-

 

Franklin I.S.D.

$756.50

$710.00

$564.13

$547.94

$546.96

$3125.53

$1915.79

$94.35

 

The evidence shows that the taxing entities are entitled to recover the following amounts on Tract 2 property:

Year

1986

1987

1989

Total taxes

Penalties/interest

Attorney's fees

 

Robertson Co.

$29.16

$33.16

$33.10

$95.42

$36.45

$5.71

 

City of Franklin

$32.46

$30.30

-0-

$62.76

$34.83

-0-

 

Franklin I.S.D.

$89.76

$87.19

$87.03

$263.98

$111.00

$15.01

 

We therefore reform the judgment to allow the taxing entities to recover these amounts and affirm the judgment as reformed.

BILL VANCE

Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Reformed and affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed September 15, 1993

Do not publish