Daily Development for Friday, February 1, 2008 by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr. Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law UMKC School of Law Of Counsel: Husch Blackwell Sanders Kansas City, Missouri dirt@umkc.edu STATE AND LOCAL TAXES; PROPERTY TAX; ASSESSMENTS; VALUATION CHALLENGES: A property owner owning improved property may not challenge only the land or improvement components of its valuation separately; rather, the owner must allege that the appraised value of the property as a whole is not equal or uniform. Covert v. Williamson Central Appraisal District, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Ct. App. 2007). Coverts owned five tracts of land, three of which were improved with car dealerships. The Coverts filed suit in district court against Williamson Central Appraisal District (WCAD), challenging four tax year valuations of the five tracts. The Coverts sought to modify their challenge to appeal the valuation ofthe land portion only= of each of the tracts, arguing that the land underlying their car dealerships had been appraised unequally when compared to other vacant, unimproved parcels near their property. In response, the WCAD argued that the applicable tax code did not provide a remedy for a taxpayer contesting only the land portion of an appraisal. The trial court agreed with WCAD, and ordered the Coverts to replead their cause of action to the effect that the entire property was appraised unequally. The Coverts refused to do so and the trial court dismissed the case. On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals addressed, as a matter of first impression, whether a taxpayer may challenge a single component of the assessor's appraisal of improved land under the applicable statute. The court began by highlighting the text of the statute, which provided that the court shall grant relief on the ground that a property is appraised unequally if the appraised value of the property exceeds the median appraised value of a reasonable number of comparable properties appropriately adjusted. The Coverts argued that nothing in the statute required them to challenge every item comprising property, and that the intent of the legislature was to narrow the median test to whichever matter or thing was selected for challenge by the property owner. In support of this argument, the Coverts pointed to: (1) the fact that the indefinite articlea= preceded the word property in the provision; and (2) a separate provision in the statute which required the appraisal district to separately list values for land and improvements. The court held thatthe choice of article antecedent to the word property was not clear evidence of the legislature's intent; rather, =whatever property is appraised must be valued equally in relation to other comparable properties. With improved property, a single value is given to the entire property, and an owner may only prevail in a challenge to that value if the owner shows that the appraised value of the improved property is not equal or uniform. Further, the court noted that land improved with particular features (such as a car dealership) has different characteristics affecting its market value than undeveloped land. Ultimately, while the separate value of land or improvements can be brought as evidence in a valuation challenge, the court refused to allow the Coverts to challenge the component values of their property in isolation from a consideration of the total assessed value. Instead, it held that a property owner must allege that the overall appraised value is unequal. Comment: The problem with the outcome from the standpoint of the appellants is that the appraiser has huge flexibility in setting values for improvement, as improvements such as car dealerships are not readily comparable to one another. But the remedy may be legislative Items reported here and in the ABA publications are for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or in the forming of decisions in legal matters. The same is true of all commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT list. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA. Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a source that is readily accessible by members of the general public, and should take that fact into account in evaluating confidentiality issues. ABOUT DIRT: DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious real estate professionals. Message volume varies, but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work day. Daily Developments are posted every work day. To subscribe, send the message subscribe Dirt [your name] to listserv@listserv.umkc.edu To cancel your subscription, send the message signoff DIRT to the address: listserv@listserv.umkc.edu for information on other commands, send the message Help to the listserv address. DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find this service more valuable, it is namedBrokerDIRT.= But residential specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions. To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name] to listserv@listserv.umkc.edu To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message signoff BrokerDIRT to the address: listserv@listserv.umkc.edu DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants permission for copying or distribution of Daily Developments for educational purposes, including professional continuing education, provided that no charge is imposed for such distribution and that appropriate credit is given to Professor Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors. DIRT has a WebPage at: https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=3D http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt/ ----- To be removed from this mailing list, please go to <https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=3D http://listserv.umkc.edu/listserv/wa.exe?SUBED1=3DBROKERDIRT%26A=3D1 or send an email message to the address listserv@listserv.umkc.edu, with the text SIGNOFF BROKERDIRT in the body of the message. Problems or questions should be directed to manager@listserv.umkc.edu. smxk2@UMKC.EDU