by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
randolphp@umkc.edu

Here's a cute little case that may prove valuable in states that have analogous statutory and constitutional provisions. Obviously, watch the appeal, but you might want to appraise your clients of the potential in this ruling.

PROPERTY TAXATION; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Texas court strikes down as unconstitutional a statute requiring pre-payment of taxes prior to assertion of tax appeal, and providing that one's right to such an appeal is waived upon failure to make such pre-payment, is unconstitutional under the Texas constitution. W.V. Grant Evangelistic Ass'n v. Dallas Cent. Appraisal Dist., 900 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1995), writ of error filed. The Texas Constitution requires "open courts", which means, inter alia, that the state legislature cannot impede access to the courts through unreasonable financial barriers. The court determined that forfeiture of the right of appeal was unreasonably harsh when weighed against the state interest involved (quick access to funds), and that, while the pre-payment provision alone was valid, the forfeiture provision was an unconstitutional violation of the "open courts" doctrine.

Items in the Daily Development section generally are extracted from the Quarterly Report on Developments in Real Estate Law, published by the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law. Subscriptions to the Quarterly Report are available to Section members only. The cost is nominal. For the last five years, these Reports annually have been collated, updated, indexed and bound into the Annual Survey of Developments in Real Estate Law, volumes 1-5, published by the ABA Press. The Annual Survey volumes are available for sale to the public. Contact Shawn Kaminsky at the ABA. (312) 988 5260.

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. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.