genesis-capital-partners-ix-as-the-property-owners-and-the-property ( 2011 )

Opinion issued June 16, 2011

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-09-00998-CV

———————————

Genesis Capital Partners IX, Appellant

V.

Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District, Appellees

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2008-55419

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          In this ad valorem property tax case, appellant Genesis Capital Partners IX* challenges the trial court’s order granting appellee Harris County Appraisal District’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing its suit for judicial review. Genesis Capital filed a valuation protest for tax year 2008 for the commercial property known as One Chasewood Park.  At the hearing before the Appraisal Review Board, Genesis Capital and the appraisal district concurred on a median value of $15,194,294 for the property.  Genesis Capital did not object on the ground that the chief appraiser was not present.  The Appraisal Review Board issued an order determining protest, which showed a final property value of $15,194,294 and stated that Genesis Capital had the right to appeal.

          Genesis Capital filed a petition in the district court alleging excessive and unequal appraisal.  The appraisal district answered and filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing that the appeal was prohibited because the property owner’s agent reached an agreement with the appraisal district.  See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 1.111(e) (West 2008); MHCB (USA) Leasing & Fin. Corp. v. Galveston Cent. Appraisal Dist., 249 S.W.3d 68, 84 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied).  In response, Genesis Capital denied the existence of any agreement between its agent and the appraisal district’s chief appraiser as to the value of the property.  The trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Genesis Capital appealed.  In its first issue, it contends that the trial court erred in determining that its suit was barred because it had agreed with the appraisal district upon the appraisal value of the subject property at an ARB hearing.  See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 1.111(e).  In its second issue, Genesis Capital argues that the trial court erred by implicitly denying its request for a continuance to obtain discovery.

          We review a ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction de novo, construing the pleadings in the plaintiff’s favor and considering relevant evidence when the existence of jurisdictional facts has been challenged. See Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226–27 (Tex. 2004); Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 553–54 (Tex. 2000); Koll Bren Fund VI, L.P. v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 01-07-00321-CV, 2008 WL 525799, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 28, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

Although the chief appraiser is required to appear at each protest hearing, Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 41.45(c) (West Supp. 2010), he may delegate authority to his employees to appear on his behalf, see id. § 6.05(e) (West 2008).  At the protest hearing before the ARB, an appraisal district representative appeared on behalf of the chief appraiser, no objection was made that the chief appraiser was not present, and during the hearing an agreement was made between Genesis Capital’s agent and the appraisal district’s representative.  Following this Court’s prior and binding precedent, we hold that the agreement is final and not subject to protest or judicial review under Chapter 42 of the Tax Code. See Kelly v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 01-09-00996-CV, 2011 WL 497032, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 10, 2011, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Genesis Capital further asserts that it had an absolute right to appeal because of the order issued by the ARB.  It did not. Because the parties’ agreement became final before the ARB determined the protest, the subsequent approval of the agreement by the board was irrelevant.  See id.

Genesis Capital also asserts that the denial of its appeal to the trial court violates its right to due process.  It does not.  Genesis Capital’s due process rights were not violated because it was given an opportunity to be heard before the ARB and it reached an agreement with the appraisal district during its protest hearing.  See id. at *5; see also Mann v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 01-07-00436-CV, 2008 WL 1747807, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] April 17, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op); Hartman v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 251 S.W.3d 595, 601 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied); BPAC Tex., L.P. v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., No. 01-03-01238-CV, 2004 WL 2422033, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 28, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op).

We hold that the trial court properly granted the appraisal district’s plea to the jurisdiction, and in light of this holding, we further hold that the trial court did not err in implicitly denying Genesis Capital’s motion for continuance.  We overrule both of Genesis Capital’s issues, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Massengale.

---

*           In the order of dismissal, the named plaintiff was identified as Genesis Capital Partners IX, “as the PROPERTY OWNERS and the PROPERTY OWNERS.”  No party argues that this quoted language has any significance to the issues on appeal, and our review of the record reveals no other parties who could qualify as appellants.  See Tex. R. App. P. 3.1(a).