Superior Oil Co. v. Sinton Independent School Dist.

• Decision Date: 25 July 1968
• Docket Number: No. 334,334
• Citation: 431 S.W.2d 383
• Parties: SUPERIOR OIL COMPANY, Appellant, v. SINTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Appellees. . Corpus Christi
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 383

431 S.W.2d 383

SUPERIOR OIL COMPANY, Appellant, v. SINTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Appellees.

No. 334.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

Corpus Christi.

July 25, 1968.

Pat F. Timmons, Houston, Harry Burnett, Burnett & Joseph, Sinton, for appellant.

E. G. Aycock, Fort Worth, for appellees.

OPINION

GREEN, Chief Justice.

This suit was filed by appellant The Superior Oil Company against appellees Sinton Independent School District and the members of the latter's Board of Trustees, its Tax-Assessor-Collector, and the members of its Board of Equalization for the year 1966. Appellant sought a permanent mandatory injunction to stay the collection of taxes fixed in amount by resort to an allegedly illegal arbitrary fundamentally wrong scheme of taxation. The judgment appealed from denied such relief.

Appellant summarizes its contentions in its brief as follows:

'First: Appellant's mineral property has been so grossly over-valued as to make the valuation fraudulent and illegal.

Second: Appellant has been substantially injured either in percentage ratio of assessment or in dollars and cents of tax rate or both, because Appellees systematically and deliberately omitted taxable cash on hand and taxable bank deposits from tax rolls.

Third: Appellant has been substantially injured either in percentage ratio of assessment or dollars and cents of tax rate or both, because Appellees systematically and deliberately omitted taxable personal motor vehicles from the tax rolls.

Fourth: Appellant has been substantially injured either in percentage ratio of assessment or in dollars of tax rate or both, because Appellees have systematically and deliberately placed taxable lands in the School District on the tax roll at less than 40% Of the actual market value in cash.

Fifth: Appellees have embarked upon an illegal, arbitrary, fundamentally wrong scheme for the year 1966 which substantially injured Appellant and is void as a matter of law.

Sixth: Appellant is substantially injured in dollars of tax rate because the School Board of Trustees abused its discretion in the fixing of tax rate of the year 1966.

Seventh: Appellant was entitled to have the value of its mineral properties for taxation determined by an entrinsic value calculation and the court erred in prohibiting it from doing so.

Eighth: Appellant challenges as the cases make necessary the constitutional sufficiency of certain prerequisites to the maintenance of suit by an aggrieved taxpayer.'

Trial was had before the court and jury, and after several days of testimony the jury brought in its verdict wherein it found (1) that the actual cash market value of the oil properties of appellant situated in appellee district as of January 1, 1966, was not less than $36,922,650.00; (2) unanswered; (3) that the value of such properties on such date was $36,922,650.00; (4) that appellant was not substantially injured by its oil properties being so valued; (5) that the assessed valuation on appellant's oil properties for 1966 was not grossly excessive; (6) that appellee Board of Equalization did not determine the amount of money to be raised by taxation and fix the value for properties taxed by it without regard to actual cash market value; (7) unanswered; (8) that the Board of Trustees of the school district did not abuse its discretion in fixing a tax rate for 1966 which raised more taxes for the year than were needed; (9) unanswered; (10) that appellant was not substantially injured by the omission, if any, of taxable personal motor vehicles from the 1966 tax rolls of appellee; (11) that money on hand and deposited in banks had not been systematically and deliberately omitted from appellee's 1966 tax rolls; (12) unanswered; (13) that farm land and city real estate were not systematically and deliberately assessed on appellee's tax rolls at less than 40% Of their actual cash market value on January 1, 1966; (14) unanswered; (15) that the bulk of properties in appellee school district, other than the oil properties of appellant were not systematically and deliberately assessed on appellee's tax rolls at less than 40% Of their actual cash market value on January 1, 1966; (16) unanswered.

Before the filing of this suit appellant had duly submitted to appellee's tax assessor-collector its rendition of its properties for tax purposes for the year 1966. Thereafter appellee District timely notified appellant of its intention to readjust its assessment, and gave notice of a hearing to be held by appellee's Board of Equalization. The hearing before the Board was held on June 30, at which hearing appellant appeared by its attorneys and tax officials, and both parties introduced testimony. At the end of this hearing, the Board by due resolution fixed the valuation of appellant's mineral properties at the figure testified to by appellee's expert witness. Appellant promptly filed its protest to such assessment. Thereafter, the Board continued in session until July 27, 1966, at which time it adjourned for all purposes other than the examination, correction and approval of the tax rolls. These rolls were corrected and approved by the members of the Board on August 26, 1966. This suit for mandatory injunction was filed in the district court of San Patricio County on July 29, 1966, two days after the Board of Equalization had tentatively adjourned, and 30 days prior to the final correction of the tax rolls. Under such circumstances, this suit is a direct attack upon appellant's tax plan as it concerns appellant's properties, filed prior to the plan having been put into effect, and the principles of law apply as set forth in City of Houston v. Baker, Tex.Civ.App., 178 S.W. 820, wr. ref. and City of Wichita Falls v. Cooper, Tex.Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 777, wr. ref. both cited with approval in City of Arlington v. Cannon, 153 Tex. 566, 271 S.W.2d 414, 416.

According to such authorities, in a suit of this nature the burden was on the appellant as plaintiff in the trial court to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the taxation plan adopted by appellee was arbitrary, discriminatory and fundamentally erroneous and illegal and that the appellant would be potentially injured if such system is put in effect. As stated by the Supreme Court in City of Arlington v. Cannon, supra, and quoted in State v. Federal Land Bank of Houston, 160 Tex. 282, 329 S.W.2d 847, 849:

'The Deliberate adoption of a plan for the omission from the tax rolls of a Large volume of property, personal or real, is in direct contravention of constitutional and statutory provisions for equality and uniformity of taxation. * * * ' (Emphasis added)

By its points of error 1--5 inclusive appellant raises the contention that the answer of the jury to special issue No. 6 supra was not supported legally or factually by the evidence. We overrule these points. The evidence of the members of the Board of Equalization, as well as that of appellee's Trustees who testified and appellee's expert witness was that the valuation placed on appellant's oil properties was based on evidence of the actual market value of such properties. The jury, in our opinion, was well justified from the testimony in answering such issue as it did.

Appellant does not question by any point of error the answer of the jury finding the actual cash market value of appellant's properties to be the sum fixed as such by the appellee's Board. Special Issues Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5. ¹ However, since in appellant's discussion and argument under these points it does question such valuation as being excessive, we shall note here that a reading of the lengthy statement of facts convinces us that an issue of fact was raised by the evidence of appellant's expert witnesses on valuation as contrasted with the evidence of appellee's valuation expert, and it appears clear that the jury, as was its prerogative, evidently believed the latter.

Our courts have repeatedly held that the decisions of taxing boards in the matter of valuations are quasi-judicial in nature, and in the absence of fraud or other obvious violation of the law such decisions are not subject to collateral attack. State v. Houser, 138 Tex. 28, 156 S.W.2d 968. The opinion in Aycock v. Travis County, Tex.Civ.App., 255 S.W.2d 910, wr. ref., quotes from Druesdow v. Baker, Tex.Com.App., 229 S.W. 493, 495, affd. 263 U.S. 137, 45 S.Ct. 40, 68 L.Ed. 212, as follows:

'* * * The process used by the Board in reaching its preliminary valuation is wholly immaterial, the ultimate conclusions or final valuations being the matters under investigation; and unless it be shown that the method used brought about unjust and unlawful results, its judgment will not be disturbed.'

We have found no evidence in the record which would subject the decision of the Equalization Board to the attack directed on it by appellant's points 1--5 inclusive.

Appellant's points 6--10 inclusive constitute an attack upon the jury's answer to special issue No. 11 supra concerning the failure to assess cash and bank deposits. While the evidence showed that bank accounts in the school district were omitted from the tax rolls there was evidence that such omission was not the result of a deliberate, arbitrary and systematic illegal scheme to cause such taxable property to escape taxation. Appellee does not contend, as the taxing authority did in Whelan v. State, 155 Tex. 14, 282 S.W.2d 378, that bank deposits are not taxable. The testimony of appellee's tax-collector was that he recognized that bank deposits of residents of the district were subject to taxation, and that he attempted to secure information concerning taxable bank accounts, but that he was unable to secure same. Members of the Board of Equalization testified that it was not their intention to omit any taxable property from the rolls. There was no evidence of any amount of money in the banks to the credit of residents of the district actually subject to taxation, and appellant...