Jennifer Ann Larkins-Ruby v. Sealy Independent School District ( 2020 )

Opinion issued February 13, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-18-00746-CV
———————————
JENNIFER ANN LARKINS-RUBY, Appellant
V.
SEALY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, AUSTIN COUNTY, AND
AUSTIN COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT #1, Appellees
On Appeal from the 155th District Court
Austin County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2015V-0134
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this ad valorem tax suit, Jennifer Ann Larkins-Ruby, proceeding pro se,
appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Sealy Independent School District,
Austin County, and Austin County Emergency Services District #1 (the “taxing
units”). Larkins-Ruby contends that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction over
the case; (2) the taxing units lacked jurisdiction to levy taxes; and (3) the taxing units
failed to establish a prima facie case. We affirm.
Background
On November 11, 2015, the taxing units filed suit against Larkins-Ruby to
recover delinquent ad valorem taxes on real property located in Austin County1 for
the 2014 tax year.2 On August 9, 2018, the taxing units amended their petition to
include tax years 2015 through 2017.
A bench trial was held on August 14, 2018. The taxing units introduced a
certified tax statement showing that, as of August 31, 2018, Larkins-Ruby owed
delinquent taxes in the amounts of $3,214.06 to Austin County, $7,830.92 to Sealy
Independent School District, and $183.50 to the Austin County Emergency Services
District #1. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the taxing units and ordered
that they recover delinquent taxes, penalties, interest, and costs in the total amount
1
The legal description of the property is as follows:
TRACT 1: A TRACT OF LAND BEING 1.00 ACRE, MORE
OR LESS, IN ALLEN CREEK FARM, SECTION 4, IN THE
JOHN P. BORDEN HEADRIGHT SURVEY, ABSTRACT
125, AUSTIN COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS TWO 0.50 ACRE
TRACTS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” TO VOLUME 441,
PAGE 843 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF AUSTIN
COUNTY, TEXAS.
2
The other named defendants are not party to this appeal.
2
of $11,228.48. On September 10, 2018, the trial court entered findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Larkins-Ruby timely filed this appeal.
Compliance with Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1
Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, we nonetheless require pro se
litigants to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. See Wheeler v.
Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005) (stating “pro se litigants are not exempt
from the rules of procedure”); Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–
85 (Tex. 1978). On appeal, a pro se appellant must properly present her case.
Strange v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet.
denied). To do so, Larkins-Ruby’s brief must, among other things, “state concisely
all issues or points presented for review” and “contain a clear and concise argument
for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.”
TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (i).
Larkins-Ruby’s brief does not state concisely her issues for review or contain
a clear and concise argument for the contentions she makes. There is no statement
of issues and it is difficult to discern the points about which she complains on appeal.
See Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 896 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2010, no pet.) (stating that brief fails if court must speculate or guess about
what contentions are being made). She also cites propositions of general law but
provides no analysis of the cited authorities or an explanation of how they are
3
relevant to the issues presented. See id. (noting that “references to sweeping
statements of general law are rarely appropriate” and that brief is inadequate if it
does not provide existing legal authority that can be applied to facts of case); In re
Estate of Taylor, 305 S.W.3d 829, 836 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.)
(stating failure to cite legal authority or to provide substantive analysis of issues
presented results in waiver of complaint). We have no duty, or even right, to perform
an independent review of the record—in this case, nearly 2,000 pages—and
applicable law to determine whether there was error. See Valadez v. Avitia, 238
S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.); see also Borisov v. Keels, No.
01–15–00522–CV, 2016 WL 3022603, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May
26, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Larkins-Ruby has therefore presented nothing
for our review.
However, even absent briefing waiver, Larkins-Ruby could not prevail on her
challenge to the trial court’s judgment in favor of the taxing units for the reasons set
forth below.
Jurisdictional Challenges
Construing Larkins-Ruby’s brief liberally, as we must, we understand her to
argue that (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render judgment and (2) the taxing
units lacked jurisdiction to levy taxes.
4
Section 33.41 of the Tax Code states that “[a]t any time after its tax on
property becomes delinquent, a taxing unit may file suit to foreclose the lien securing
payment of the tax, to enforce personal liability for the tax, or both. The suit must
be in a court of competent jurisdiction for the county in which the tax was imposed.”
TEX. TAX CODE § 33.41(a). A district court’s jurisdiction “consists of exclusive,
appellate, and original jurisdiction of all actions, proceedings, and remedies, except
in cases where exclusive, appellate, or original jurisdiction may be conferred by this
Constitution or other law on some other court, tribunal, or administrative body.”
TEX. CONST. art. V, § 8. Here, the taxing units filed their ad valorem tax suit in the
155th District Court in Austin County, Texas.3 The property in question is located
in Austin County. Accordingly, jurisdiction to hear the case was properly vested in
the 155th District Court of Austin County.
Larkins-Ruby also complains that the taxing units lacked jurisdiction to tax
the subject property because Texas granted a land patent to John P. Borden, an
apparent predecessor-in-title, which divested the government of jurisdiction over the
property. Larkins-Ruby quotes various non-binding authorities and provides no
substantive analysis of the cited cases or explanation of how they bar the state from
collecting taxes on the subject property. See e.g., Brown v. N. Hills Reg’l R.R. Auth.,
3
There is no suggestion that the 155th District Court was divested of the jurisdiction
to hear this case.
5
732 N.W.2d 732, 739–40 (S.D. 2007) (holding United States relinquished whatever
interest it retained in railroad right-of-ways through General Railroad Right-of-Way
Act of 1875 when land patents were issued to property owner’s predecessor-in-title
without reserving right in right-of-ways); United States v. Shale, 433 F. Supp. 1256,
1267 (D. C. Colo. 1977) (“[A] patent which is regular in form and for whose issuance
there is statutory authority is so binding on the government that a purchaser from the
patentee need make no investigation as to the details of its issuance[,] the legal title
has passed[,] and the patent is conclusive against the government.”) (quoting
RUFFORD G. PATTON, PATTON ON LAND TITLES, § 292, at 26–27 (2nd ed. 1957)).
“All real property and tangible personal property in this State, unless exempt
as required or permitted by this Constitution, whether owned by natural persons or
corporations, other than municipal, shall be taxed in proportion to its value, which
shall be ascertained as may be provided by law.” TEX. CONST. art. VIII, § 1(b).
Thus, “subject only to federal limitations and exemptions set forth in the Texas
Constitution, the State of Texas, through its political subdivisions, has the power to
tax any real and tangible personal private property in the state.” Dall. Cty. Appraisal
Dist. v. L.D. Brinkman & Co., 701 S.W.2d 20, 22 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, writ
ref’d n.r.e.); see also Avery v. Guadalupe Cty. Appraisal Dist., No. 04-16-00572-
CV, 2017 WL 1337640, at *6 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 12, 2017, pet. denied)
(mem. op.) (rejecting property owner’s arguments challenging authority and
6
lawfulness of Texas taxing units to impose and collect ad valorem taxes). The taxing
units have the authority under the state constitution to levy taxes on the subject
property. See Dall. Cty. Appraisal Dist., 701 S.W.2d at 22.
Prima Facie Case
Larkins-Ruby contends that the taxing units failed to establish a prima facie
case establishing the elements of their cause of action.
Tax Code section 33.41 authorizes a taxing unit, “[a]t any time after its tax on
property becomes delinquent,” to file suit to enforce the taxpayer’s personal liability
for the tax. TEX. TAX CODE § 33.41(a). Section 33.47(a) provides:
In a suit to collect a delinquent tax, the taxing unit’s current tax roll and
delinquent tax roll or certified copies of the entries showing the
property and the amount of the tax and penalties imposed and interest
accrued constitute prima facie evidence that each person charged with
a duty relating to the imposition of the tax has complied with all
requirements of law and that the amount of tax alleged to be delinquent
against the property and the amount of penalties and interest due on that
tax as listed are the correct amounts.
Id. § 33.47(a).
“Once a taxing authority in a delinquency suit introduces the tax records
described in section 33.47(a) into evidence, it establishes a prima facie case as to
every material fact necessary to establish its cause of action.” City of Bellaire v.
Sewell, 426 S.W.3d 116, 120 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.)
(quoting Nat’l Med. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist., 150 S.W.3d 901,
906 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.)); Aldine Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Ogg, 122 S.W.3d
7
257, 264 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). A rebuttable presumption
then arises that the taxes in question are due, delinquent, and unpaid. City of
Bellaire, 426 S.W.3d at 120; Nat’l Med. Fin. Servs., 150 S.W.3d at 906. After the
taxing authority makes its prima facie case by introducing the required records, the
burden of proof then shifts to the taxpayer to show, by introducing competent
evidence, that she has paid the full amount of taxes, penalties, and interest or that
there is some other defense that applies to her case. City of Bellaire, 426 S.W.3d at
120.
Here, the taxing units complied with section 33.47(a) by introducing into
evidence a certified tax statement showing that, as of August 31, 2018, Larkins-Ruby
owed delinquent ad valorem taxes in the amount of $11,228.48 for tax years
2014-2017. This statement demonstrated the delinquent tax owed, the applicable
penalties, and the accrued interest assessed for each taxing unit and each tax year.
The taxing units thus established a prima facie case “as to every material fact
necessary to establish [their] cause of action.” Nat’l Med. Fin. Servs., Inc., 150
S.W.3d at 906. It was then incumbent upon Larkins-Ruby to show that she had
either paid the full amount of taxes, penalties, and interest or that there was some
other defense that applied to her case. City of Bellaire, 426 S.W.3d at 121.
Larkins-Ruby introduced four exhibits at trial. The first exhibit consists of an
affidavit reflecting Larkins-Ruby’s name change from “Jennifer Ann Larkins Ruby”
8
to “Jennifer Ann Larkins-Ruby.” The affidavit is accompanied by a decree granting
name change signed by the presiding judge of the Austin County Court at Law on
October 5, 2017. The second exhibit is a power of attorney showing that
“Larkins-Ruby, Jennifer Ann” is designated as the attorney-in-fact for Jennifer Ann
Larkins-Ruby. The third and fourth exhibits are photocopies of the cover page and
two pages of a book concerning the authentication, acknowledgement, and proof of
written instruments. See RUSSELL WHITELAW HOUK, THE AUTHENTICATION,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND PROOF OF WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS 96–97
(Bancroft-Whitney Company, 1905). None of these exhibits establishes a defense
to the taxing units’ claims, and Larkins-Ruby did not present any evidence that she
had paid the full amount of taxes, penalties, and interest.
We conclude that the taxing units were statutorily entitled to recover the
delinquent taxes owed by Larkins-Ruby for tax years 2014 through 2017. We hold
that the trial court properly rendered judgment in favor of the taxing units in their ad
valorem tax suit. Accordingly, we overrule Larkins-Ruby’s issues.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Russell Lloyd
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Lloyd, and Kelly.
9