Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Gregory Scott Cunningham owns property that was valued at $200,000 in 2002. In 2003, Cunningham received a notice from the Dallas Central Appraisal District informing him that, under Tax Code 23.23, Cunningham’s property was being appraised at its fair market value, or $374,330. The notice further informer Cunningham that because of a cap provided in the Tax Code, the capped value of Cunningham’s property was to be $225,000. The statement said that the estimated tax would be $5,177, based on the current year’s proposed value and the previous year’s tax rate. Cunningham filed a notice of protest, saying his property was worth $220,000, due to the constitutional cap on increases. The Appraisal Review Board denied the protest, so Cunningham appealed to the trial court. In his motion for summary judgment, Cunningham again said that the increase was prohibited by 23.23(a)(2), which limits increases in appraised value by more than 10 percent. The only evidence he presented was of the 2002 value, plus a statement that said he had made $0 in improvements in the following year. The trial court granted Cunningham’s summary judgment, stating that the appraised value was limited to $225,000, and the total market value was also $225,000. On appeal, the appraisal district argues that the trial court erred in adjudging the market value of the property. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The court acknowledges that parts of the Tax Code refer to the market value and how it is calculated, but that 23.23 does not address how market value is to be determined. That section discusses only the cap on the appraised value of a residence homestead. The court concludes that the market value is determined based on an assessment completed by the application of generally accepted appraisal methods and techniques. It is not computed under 23.23. The court continues by explaining that, once the market value is determined, the appraisal district uses that value to determine if there is a limitation on the appraised value of a residence homestead by comparing to the prior year’s appraised value. Cunningham requested the trial court establish the market value of the property because of the limitation to the appraised value under 23.23(a)(2). However, because 23.23 does not address the determination of the market value, Cunningham did not establish as a matter of law that the market value was equal to the appraised value as limited under 23.23(a) or subject to the limitations of that section. Further, Cunningham’s request to declare the market value to be $220,000 is contrary to appraisal district’s market value determination of $374,330. Therefore, a fact issue existed as to the market value of the property, and summary judgment for Cunningham was inappropriate. OPINION:Mazzant, J.; Bridges, O’Neill, and Mazzant, 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.