Webb v. L. B. Walker and Associates
| Decision Date | 22 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 1469,1469 |
| Citation | 544 S.W.2d 952 |
| Parties | Gary B. WEBB et al., Appellants, v. L. B. WALKER AND ASSOCIATES et al., Appellees. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
After consideration of appellants' motion for rehearing, we withdraw our earlier opinion and substitute this opinion in lieu thereof.
This appeal is from a judgment declaring section 44--9 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Houston, 1968, as amended by Ordinance No. 74--2204, 'unconstitutional and void insofar as it prohibits an agent in fact from filing an ad valorem tax rendition on behalf of his principal . . .' and enjoining the appellant Webb from enforcing the provisions of said section insofar as it prohibits an agent in fact from filing renditions of behalf of his principal.
The plaintiffs in this case, appellees here, are sixteen tax consultants and tax consulting firms and three owners of personal property situated within the City of Houston. The appellee tax consultants were hired by a number of persons owning real or personal property having a tax situs within the City of Houston and the Houston Independent School District, to evaluate personal property owned by them and to render such property for taxation to appellant Webb, the tax assessor and collector for the City of Houston and the Houston Independent School District. These tax consultants for many years prior to 1974 had performed such services for their clients of fee basis. They would value the property by inspection of the property itself, or on information received from the client, or by comparison with the previous year's assessed value, or by a combination of two or more of these methods. Such rendition would be filed prior to the date required in the ordinance. Later, in consultation with the tax assessor and collector's office, the consultants would resolve any differences regarding the value of the rendered property.
Prior to December 23, 1974, section 44--9 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Houston provided that:
It shall be the duty of every person owning, holding or controlling property within the limits of the city, which is subject to taxation under the laws of the state and the Charter, laws and ordinances of the city, to render to the assessor and collector of taxes of the city, at his office or to his authorized deputy, annually between the first day of January and first day of March, a full and complete list or inventory of all property so owned, held or controlled by such person, either as agent or attorney, trustee, guardian, executor or administrator for the purpose of assessment and taxation, and to take and subscribe to an oath as to the correctness of such list or inventory as prescribed, and any person who shall fail to thus render in his property for taxation as provided for above when especially requested to do so in person by the assessor and collector or his deputy, before the same is placed on the tax roll, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
It shall be duty of the assessor and collector and his authorized deputies to receive such list or inventory described above between the days set out, but lists or inventories taken on days other than those herein specified shall be valid.
On December 23, 1974, the Houston City Council amended section 44--9 by enacting Ordinance No. 74--2204. This new ordinance, including its title, provided:
Sec. 1. That Section 44--9 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Houston, Texas, be and the same is hereby amended so that it shall hereinafter read as follows, to-wit:
It shall be the duty of every person, firm or corporation, other than municipal, owning, holding or controlling property having a tax situs within the City to render for taxation to the assessor and collector of taxes or his authorized representative, at his office, annually between the 1st day of January and the 30th day of April, a full and complete list or inventory of all property so owned, held or controlled by such person, firm or corporation, either as agent in possession and control, trustee, guardian, executor or administrator. All renditions must be subscribed and sworn to in the manner prescribed by the laws of the State of Texas and the charter and ordinances of the City of Houston.
Any person, firm or corporation who shall fail to render his property for taxation as provided for above when especially requested to do so in person by the assessor and collector or his authorized representative before the same is placed on the tax roll, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
It shall be the duty of the assessor and collector and his authorized representatives to receive such rendition described herein between the days set out, and if any person, firm or corporation shall fail to render any property owned, held or controlled by him then it shall be the duty of the assessor and collector to assess said property for taxation in accordance with law.
Subsequent to the enactment of the amended ordinance, Webb wrote a letter to the owners of business personal property advising them as follows:
The rendition must be signed and sworn to by the owner of the property being rendered. If the property is owned by a corporation, the rendition must be signed and sworn to by the President or Secretary of the corporation. City of Houston Code of Ordinances Sec. 44--9 Ordinance No. 74--2204; Articles 7152 and 7170 Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. If the rendition form is prepared by someone other than the owner, the preparer's name should be listed on the line below the owner's entitled 'By.' However, in all cases the owner must swear to the truth of the rendition.
On or before April 30, 1975, various owners, through their agents, rendered their business personal property for taxation to Webb's office through and by the appellee tax consultants. The renditions and oaths were signed by the consultants for the owners. Attached to the renditions were instruments designating the consultants as agents, and in some cases agents in possession and control for the purpose of rendering personal property. Webb refused to accept such renditions and threatened to assess the property as unrendered. This lawsuit resulted.
In their petition, plaintiffs alleged that Webb was rejecting renditions of property made by the agents of the property owners. Webb, they claimed, was interpreting section 44--9 to require the owner, if a natural person, to personally sign and swear to the rendition; if the owner was a corporation, the rendition had to be signed and sworn to by a 'corporate officer or agent in possession and control.' They further alleged the ordinance did not prohibit rendition by agents and, if the ordinance should be so construed, it was void as violative of the Charter of the City of Houston. The City and Webb filed a general denial. They specifically denied that Ordinance No. 74--2204 was invalid, that a valid agency existed between plaintiff tax consultants and their clients, and that the documents tendered to Webb by the tax consultants were valid renditions. Trial was had to a jury.
The statement of facts consists of approximately 400 pages. For the most part the facts concerned the appointment of the tax consultants as agents, the procedure used by the consultants for evaluating the property of their clients for ad valorem taxes, the procedure followed prior to 1975, the background leading to enactment of Ordinance No. 74--2204, the alleged deficiency in the caption of that ordinance, the reasons why Webb was requiring renditions to be signed by the owners or an 'agent in possession and control,' and the action taken by Webb after sending his letter to the owners of personal property.
At the conclusion of the evidence, two special issues were submitted to the jury. These issues read:
SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 1
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that
The jury answered special issue number one finding the tax consultants were agents; special issue number two was found in the negative.
Appellees filed a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, which the trial court granted, finding that the evidence raised no issues of fact and that a directed verdict for appellees would have been proper. Judgment was entered for appellees.
A review of the evidence introduced at trial makes it clear that these consultants were agents of the property owners for the purpose of rendering the property; that they were appointed by their principals for that purpose, and that their principals were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Willow Park v. Bryant
...Utility Dist. v. Cease, 596 S.W.2d 601, 604 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1980, no writ); Webb v. L.B. Walker and Associates, 544 S.W.2d 952, 957 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.). During oral argument, the City's attorney additionally argued that appellees should have ......
-
Scurlock Permian Corp. v. Brazos County, 01-93-00080-CV
...City of Willow Park v. Bryant, 763 S.W.2d 506, 508 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1988, no writ); Webb v. L.B. Walker and Assoc., 544 S.W.2d 952, 957 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Here, neither party raised the issue of constitutionality; the attorney general's lack o......