Turner Solari and Lorenn Solari v. Comal Appraisal District and Appraisal Review Board of Comal County

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District at Austin, affirmed the dismissal of Turner and Lorenn Solari’s challenge to the taxation of two Comal County residential lots allegedly held through land patents. The court held that the Texas Tax Code bars petitions for review against an appraisal review board and that land patents do not exempt privately owned property from ad valorem taxation. The court also rejected the Solaris’ procedural challenges concerning summary judgment and the consideration of the appraisal district’s jurisdictional arguments.

Holdings

1. The Texas Tax Code affirmatively bars bringing a petition for review against an appraisal review board; therefore, the district court properly granted the ARB's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the claims against it.
2. A land patent conveying title to privately owned residential property does not, by itself, exempt the property from ad valorem taxation. The properties remained taxable under the Texas Constitution and Texas Tax Code because no applicable constitutional or statutory exemption was established.
3. The district court properly granted summary judgment for the CAD because the properties were taxable as a matter of law, and any factual dispute over whether the Solaris held title through land patents was immaterial to the disposition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court improperly granted relief in favor of the Appraisal Review Board when the ARB had not filed a dispositive motion or appeared at the hearing.
2. Whether the district court properly granted the ARB's plea to the jurisdiction when the Texas Tax Code prohibits bringing a petition for review against an appraisal review board.
3. Whether residential lots conveyed through land patents are exempt from ad valorem taxation absent an express reservation of the State's taxing power.
4. Whether the district court properly granted the CAD's motion for summary judgment despite the Solaris' asserted evidence that they held title through land patents.
5. Whether the district court complied with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c) by ruling after a summary-judgment hearing and considering the written record.
6. Whether the district court improperly considered the ARB's plea to the jurisdiction or a governmental-immunity defense.

Disposition

affirmed