Hinkson v. Lorenzo Independent School Dist.

• Decision Date: 18 October 1937
• Docket Number: No. 4809.,4809.
• Parties: HINKSON v. LORENZO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

109 S.W.2d 1008

HINKSON v. LORENZO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

No. 4809.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

October 18, 1937.

Rehearing Denied November 15, 1937.

Appeal from District Court, Crosby County; Homer L. Pharr, Judge.

Suit by the Lorenzo Independent School District against C. Hinkson. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Vickers & Campbell, of Lubbock, for appellant.

Crenshaw & Dupree, of Lubbock, for appellee.

STOKES, Justice.

This suit was filed by appellee, Lorenzo Independent School District, against appellant for taxes alleged to be due appellee for the years 1930 to 1935, inclusive, and to foreclose its tax lien on two and one-half sections of land belonging to appellant, located in Crosby county, and within the limits of the school district. Appellant answered by the general issue and, specially, that the school district had placed excessive values on his lands for the years mentioned, and alleged the assessments had not been made in a legal and equitable manner, in that the equalization board did not resort to constitutional and legal methods to determine the actual and true value of the lands, but had placed thereon valuations far in excess of the cash or market value, and alleged the taxes assessed for the years mentioned were illegal and void as to the amount in excess of what they would have been if based upon the cash or market value of the lands for the years for which the taxes were assessed.

The case was tried before the court without the intervention of a jury, and resulted in a judgment for appellee for the full amount of taxes sued for, as assessed by the school district for each of the years mentioned, the judgment providing for a recovery of a lump sum and foreclosure of the tax lien asserted by appellee, and made provision for an order of sale to issue. The amount of the judgment was $3,551.56, which included the taxes, interest, and penalty.

Appellant based his defense as to the alleged illegal assessments upon the allegation that at the times the boards of equalization for the respective years met to perform their duties of equalizing the assessment valuations for the district, the board of school trustees presented to them a budget, setting forth the amount of money necessary to be raised to operate the schools, and that the board of equalization had made the assessments with the view of raising the necessary amounts each year by apportionment among the taxpayers of the district in proportion to the amount of property owned by them, respectively, without regard to the cash or market value of the real and personal property, and without regard to its actual or intrinsic value. A further ground of defense was that the board of equalization had established zones within the district and based the valuations and the assessments of the property in each zone according to its location or inclusion within that zone, and without regard to the cash or market value, or any other legal value, of the taxable property.

The general rule is that an attack of the character here made by appellant upon assessment valuations made by a board of equalization cannot be justified in the absence of allegations and proof of fraud, or something equivalent thereto, such as lack of jurisdiction, an obvious violation of the law, or the adoption of a principle or method of establishing valuations or making assessments that is fundamentally wrong and which results in a substantial injury to the complainant. Mere differences of opinion, honestly entertained, though erroneous, will not warrant the interference of the courts. Druesdow v. Baker (Tex.Com.App.) 229 S.W. 493; Menardville Independent School Dist. v. Moser (Tex.Civ.App.) 90 S.W.(2d) 578, 579; Lubbock Hotel Co. v. Lubbock Independent School Dist. (Tex.Civ.App.) 85 S. W.(2d) 776; Simkins v. City of Corsicana (Tex.Civ.App.) 86 S.W.(2d) 792; State v. Mallet Land & Cattle Co., 126 Tex. 392, 88 S.W.(2d) 471.

In the case of Menardville Independent School District v. Moser, supra, it is said: "We understand the universal holding of our courts to be that a mere overvaluation by a board of equalization in an attempt to equalize the value of property rendered for taxation is not ground for interfering with the board's valuation. * * * As a general rule, the decision of a board of equalization upon a particular assessment, in the absence of fraud or illegality, is conclusive. Cooley on Taxation (2d Ed.) p. 218. Such valuation cannot be set aside merely upon a showing that the same is, in fact, excessive. If the board fairly and honestly endeavors to reach a correct valuation, a mistake upon its part under such circumstances is not subject to review by the courts."

Many cases are cited under the quoted text, and it is not contended here that the rule is otherwise.

The law being so well established in harmony with the above quotation, it therefore becomes a question of whether or not the boards of equalization of the appellee, school district, in performing their duties with respect to equalizing the value of taxable property, acted in a fraudulent manner or pursued a course or principle that was fundamentally wrong. The presumption is that tax officials, in performing their duties in assessing property for taxation, acted in good faith, and the burden is upon a complainant to establish a violation of the constitutional provision in respect to uniformity and reasonableness (article 8, § 1). In an attempt to discharge this burden appellant introduced W. L. Pattillo, who was a member of the board of equalization for the years 1930, 1931, and 1932. His testimony was substantially to the effect that when the boards of equalization met to perform their duties, the school board presented to them a budget and outlined what the expenses would be for running the schools, and requested the equalization boards to perform their duties in such manner as to reach the necessary amount as nearly as it could. He testified, however, that the equalization board did not always get the amount of money which the school board needed, but that an effort was made to equalize the assessments over the district. He said that the equalization boards did not definitely follow the instructions given by the school board, and that there was no occasion upon which the amount suggested by the latter was ever...