Fort Worth Attorneys Fort Worth Attorneys - Myers Law

 

Myers Law, Attorneys at Law
2525 Ridgmar Blvd., Suite 150
Fort Worth, Texas 76116

817.731.2500
817.731.2501 fax

MAP

 

Latest News and Legal Updates

Attorney Robert Myers Honored with "Peveto Award"

Robert J. MyersAttorney Robert J. Myers was honored with the coveted (Wayne) Peveto Award at the 33rd Annual Legal Conference on Ad Valorem Tax held in San Antonio August 20th. Awarded by the recipient's peers, the Award recognizes "outstanding contributions to property tax law". Named for the author of the Texas Property Tax Code, the Award is generally recognized as representing the pinnacle of a career in property taxation.

Myers, based in Fort Worth, but with a practice in property tax law throughout Texas and several other states, accepted the Award for himself and all of his peers who have made it possible. "When something like this happens, there are too many people who are responsible for it to take the time to name from this stage" said Myers in his acceptance speech. "But, you know who you are and I will be contacting you in the coming days and weeks to express my gratitude to each of you,personally", said Myers.

Click to view the full press release

 


Legal Update: WILLACY COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT v SEBASTIAN COTTON & GRAIN, LTD.

Supreme Court of Texas Case No 16-0626 Delivered April 27, 2018

Background:Real property owner brought action to contest decision of county appraisal review board which affirmed county appraisal district's change in determination of ownership of a large quantity of grain stored on property, shifting tax liability back to real property owner. Following a bench trial, the 197th District Court, Willacy County, affirmed. Real property owner appealed, and the Court of Appeals, 492 S.W.3d 824, reversed in part and rendered in part. Appraisal district petitioned for review.

Holdings: The Supreme Court, Gree, J., held that:

  1. appraisal district acted within its authority when correcting appraisal roll to reflect that property owner was true owner of grain stored on its property;
  2. agreement between chief appraiser and property owner could not finally determine issue of ownership of grain;
  3. validity of final agreement was subject to attack on the basis of fraud; and
  4. property owner could not recover attorney's fees as the prevailing party.

 


Legal Update: Lindsey v. Montgomery County Appraisal District

2019 WL 2039874 (Beaumont, May, 2019)

Taxpayer defeats multiple pleas to the jurisdiction alleging failure to exhaust administrative remedies, MCAD contending that pleadings cited sections of the tax code authorizing relief that were not raised at ARB. Result comports with new legislative change to sections of the Code allowing trial court to consider all avenues of relief which taxpayer tried to or could have raised at ARB level.

 


Legal Update: HCAD v. PXP AIRCRAFT

596 SW 3d 256 (Houston [1st] 2019)

Background: Taxpayer, an owner of commercial aircraft that was used both in and outside of state, sought review of county appraisal review board's determination that upheld a penalty for a late-filed allocation application assessed against it by county appraisal district, and the appraisal district filed a plea to the jurisdiction. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the 189th District Court, Harris County, No. 2016-34309, granted taxpayer's motion for summary judgment, and did not address the jurisdictional plea. Appraisal district appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Michael Massengale, J., held that:

  1. taxpayer did not fail to exhaust its administrative remedies;
  2. trial court had authority to review taxpayer's appeal of board's determination;
  3. taxpayer did not request or receive an extension of allocation application deadline via its rendition application filings and extension; and
  4. taxpayer was not entitled to a waiver of the allocation penalty due to any misunderstanding about extensions of deadlines.

 


Legal Update: Bosque Disposal Systems v. Parker County AD

555 SW 3d 92 (Tex 2018)

Background:Taxpayers petitioned for review of valuation by appraisal district. The 415th District Court, Parker County, Roy Graham Quisenberry III, J., granted summary judgment to taxpayers. District appealed. The Court of Appeals, reversed and remanded.

Holdings:On petition for review, the Supreme Court, Blacklock, J., held that separate appraisal of taxpayers' saltwater disposal wells and the land on which they were located did not constitute double taxation. Affirmed and remanded.

 


Legal Update: Panda Sherman Power v. Grayson CAD

2018 WL 3737974 (Dallas, 2018)

Synopsis:Panda Sherman Power, LLC appeals the trial court's judgment granting Grayson Central Appraisal District's motion for summary judgment on Panda's suit seeking a tax exemption for heat recovery steam generators it alleged were used for pollution control. Panda brings one issue on appeal contending the trial court's order denied it the opportunity to challenge through a jury trial the denial of the tax exemption. The main legal issue is whether the "negative use determination" by the executive director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the Commission) is binding on the Appraisal District. We conclude the statutes give the Commission's executive director the authority to make a positive or negative use determination and that the Appraisal District does not have authority to make that determination. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

 


Legal Update: Tarrant County AD v. Tarrant Regional Water District

547 SW3d 19 (Fort Worth, 2018)

Background: Tax appraisal review board denied regional water control and improvement district an exemption from ad valorem taxation on the part of its property that was leased to a restaurant, and granted an exemption on a smaller part of the property. District appealed. The 342nd District Court, Tarrant County, No. 342-285113-16, J. Wade Birdwell, J., granted district's motion for summary judgment. County appraisal district appealed.

Holdings: On rehearing, the Court of Appeals, Bill Meier, J., held that:

  1. statute providing tax exemption for public property used for a public purpose did not require that the property be exclusively used for public purposes, overruling Grand Prairie Hosp. Auth. v. Tarrant Appraisal Dist., 707 S.W.2d 281, and
  2. portion of property leased to restaurant was used for public purposes and thus was exempt from taxation.

 


Legal Update: Sorrell v. Estate of Carlton

SW 3d ___ 62 S. Ct. Journal 888

Background: Estate of deceased property owner, whose property had been sold at a tax sale, brought action seeking declaration that it had properly redeemed the property. The 239th District Court, Brazoria County, entered judgment after a bench trial in favor of estate. Tax sale purchaser appealed. The Houston (14th Dist.) Court of Appeals, 504 S.W.3d 379, affirmed. Tax sale purchaser filed petition for review.

Holdings: The Supreme Court, Hecht, C.J., held that:

  1. timely substantial compliance with requirement to pay certain amounts may satisfy the demands of redemption statute;
  2. whether an owner substantially complied with requirements of redemption statute involves questions of both fact and law, and should be reviewed for abuse of discretion, abrogating Jensen v. Covington, 234 S.W.3d 198; and
  3. estate, having timely paid all it knew to pay and promised to promptly pay any additional amounts required, substantially complied with redemption statute.

 


Legal Update: Harris County Appraisal District v. Boyaki

2019 WL 1526431 (Houston [14th] April, 2019)

Background: Homeowner filed suit against county, seeking judicial review of a decision denying her the full homestead tax exemption on property where she had lived for more than 15 years, a reduction in the appraised value of the property, and a writ of mandamus directing the county to allow the exemption. County filed a plea to the jurisdiction. The 234th District Court, Harris County, denied county's plea. County filed interlocutory appeal.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Zimmerer, J., held that:

  1. homeowner was required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of county's denial of a homestead exemption;
  2. fact issue on timeliness of homeowner's notice of protest regarding county's homestead exemption decision precluded determination that she did not exhaust her administrative remedies; and
  3. mandamus claim was not ripe.

 

Copyright (c) 2015 Myers Law