Moore v. Tarrant Appraisal Dist., 2-90-171-CV
| Decision Date | 22 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-90-171-CV,2-90-171-CV |
| Parties | Hans J. MOORE and George H. Moore, Appellants, v. TARRANT APPRAISAL DISTRICT and Tarrant Appraisal Review Board, Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
D. Nicholas Acuff & Associates, D. Nicholas Acuff, Fort Worth, for appellants.
Cantey & Hanger, Mary Colchin Johndroe, Fort Worth, for appellees.
Before WEAVER, C.J., and LATTIMORE and DAY, JJ.
This is an appeal by Hans J. Moore and George H. Moore ("Moores") of a judgment in favor of the appellees, the Tarrant Appraisal District and the Tarrant Appraisal Review Board (hereinafter referred to as "TAD"). This was a case involving the qualification of property as open-space land for ad valorem tax purposes. The case was tried before a jury which found the property did not qualify as open-space land for any of the three years in question. The trial court rendered judgment on the jury's verdict. From this judgment, the Moores now appeal.
In their three points of error, the Moores assert that the trial court erred in: (1) instructing the jury on the term "agricultural use" by including instructions which were contradictory and misleading, placed an unlawful burden on appellants, and improperly introduced speculation on the subjective motives of the appellants rather than providing an objective test of the use of the subject land; (2) instructing the jury on the term "the degree of intensity generally accepted in the area" by using an instruction which implied that the appellants were required to be in the business of farming or ranching when the law only requires that the land be used for a farm or ranch purpose; and (3) not granting the plaintiffs' motion for new trial because the greater weight and preponderance of the evidence established that the subject property was qualified for open-space use designation in the tax years in question.
Reversed and remanded.
The Moores' first point of error contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the term "agricultural use" by including improper additional instructions. In order to determine whether this alleged error in the jury charge is reversible, we must consider the pleadings of each party, the evidence which was presented at trial, and the charge in its entirety. Island Rec. Dev. v. Republic of Texas Sav., 710 S.W.2d 551, 555 (Tex.1986) (opinion on reh'g). "[E]rror will be deemed reversible only if, when viewed in the light of the totality of these circumstances, it amounted to such a denial of the rights of the complaining party as was reasonably calculated and probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment." Id.
The Moores complain of the following language which was part of the definition of "agricultural use" submitted to the jury by the trial court: "On the other hand, if the use of the land is principally recreational, or as a hobby, then the activity, although agricultural in nature, is not one that promotes a farm or ranch purpose but instead promotes a recreational purpose." We cannot agree with the appraisal district's assertion in its brief that "if the use of land is ... as a hobby, then, necessarily, the same land could not be devoted principally to agricultural use." We find that property may be used as a hobby 1 while still qualifying as land which is devoted principally to agricultural use under the Texas Property Tax Code.
Section 23.51 of the Texas Property Tax Code provides:
"Qualified open-space land" means land that is currently devoted principally to agricultural use to the degree of intensity generally accepted in the area and that has been devoted principally to agricultural use or to production of timber or forest products for five of the preceding seven years....
"Agricultural use" includes but is not limited to the following activities: cultivating the soil, producing crops for human food, animal feed, or planting seed or for the production of fibers; floriculture, viticulture, and horticulture; raising or keeping livestock;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tarrant Appraisal Dist. v. Moore
...whether this instruction is erroneous. We hold that it is not erroneous. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, 823 S.W.2d 418, and remand this case to that court for further Hans J. Moore and George H. Moore (the "Moores") own 78 acres of land located wholly within t......