Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS: The appellant, Houston R.E. Income Properties XV Ltd., appeals a judgment in which the court below determined the market and appraised values of Houston’s property to be $7 million as of Jan. 1, 2000, and $7.8 million as of Jan. 1, 2001. The property that is the subject of this dispute is identified in the Waller County Appraisal District’s tax rolls as account number R122761. The District appraised the value of the property at issue as of Jan. 1, 2000 at $8,022,180. Houston protested the appraisal, and the Fort Bend County Appraisal Review Board determined the market value of the property to be $8,022,180 as of Jan. 1, 2000, and $8,194,760 as of Jan. 1, 2001. Houston appealed the Review Board’s determination, urging that the district court, pursuant to �42.25 of the Texas Tax Code, reduce the appraised value of the property. Both parties presented expert witnesses. Chris Barzilla, the district’s expert, valued the property at $7,782,785 as of Jan. 1, 2000 using the cost approach and valued the property at $8,028,000 as of Jan. 1, 2001 using the income approach. Jack Hughey, Houston’s expert, valued the property at $3,552,000 as of Jan. 1, 2000, and at approximately $4,500,000 as of Jan. 1, 2001 by employing the income approach. HOLDING: Affirmed. It is well settled that the three usual approaches to determining market value are the comparable sales, cost, and the income methods. Religious of the Sacred Heart v. City of Houston, 836 S.W.2d 606 (Tex. 1992). Although these are the three usual approaches to determining market value, they are not necessarily the exclusive methods by which market value may be determined. The proper inquiry is whether the appraisal method as a whole constitutes relevant and reliable evidence of market value. The method Houston complains of on appeal is a true blend of two usual appraisal methods. The court holds that the appraisal method employed by the trial court produced relevant and reliable evidence of market value. The evidence is not so weak nor is the finding so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust. Furthermore, the court concludes that the there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the trial court’s market value determination of Houston’s property. The trial court’s finding of market value was within the range of values supported by the evidence. Houston presented evidence that is inconsistent with the court’s finding, but the court is vested with discretion to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. OPINION: Hedges, J.; Nuchia, Higley and Hedges, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.