Bullseye PS III LP v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist.

6 Citing cases

  1. Hous. Cement Co. v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist.

    NO. 14-12-00491-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 25, 2013)   Cited 3 times

    The First Court of Appeals has similarly stated, "If the property owner happens to state the same valuation opinion as the appraisal district representative . . . an agreement is reached." Bullseye PS III LP v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 365 S.W.3d 427, 434-35 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied); see Hartman v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 251 S.W.3d 595, 600 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) ("When the [property owners'] agent and the appraiser each announced the same opinion as to the value of the property, they were in 'the act or fact of agreeing' and were expressing a 'harmony of opinion.'"). B

  2. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. NTU v. Wilbarger Cnty. Appraisal Dist.

    691 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. 2024)   Cited 6 times

    Town of Bartonville Plan. & Zoning Bd. of Adjustments v. Bartonville Water Supply Corp., 410 S.W.3d 23, 30 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied) (citation omitted); see also Harris County Appraisal Dist. v. Tex. Workforce Common, 519 S.W.3d 113, 130 (Tex. 2017) (recognizing that ARBs perform quasi-judicial functions).See, eg, Advanced Powder Sols., Inc v Harris County Appraisal Dist., 528 S W.3d 779, 788 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. granted, judgm’t vacated, remanded by agr.); Bullseye PS III LP v. Harris County Appraisal Dist, 365 S.W.3d 427, 435 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied); SondockvHarris County Appraisal Dist., 231 S.W.3d 65, 69 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.); MHCB (USA) Leasing & Fin. Corp. v. Galveston Cent. Appraisal Dist. Rev. Bd., 249 S.W.3d 68, 83 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied).See Tex Tax Code § 41.01(b).

  3. Willacy Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Sebastian Cotton & Grain, Ltd.

    555 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. 2018)   Cited 70 times
    Holding that an appraisal district may raise a new argument during the taxpayer's appeal to the trial court because review is de novo

    Sondock and its progeny rely on the ordinary meaning of "agreement," because the Property Tax Code does not define the term. Id. ; see alsoBullseye PS III LP v. Harris Cty. Appraisal Dist. , 365 S.W.3d 427, 432 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied). We note that in other contexts, the Property Tax Code requires agreements to be in writing and signed.

  4. Parkwood 121 Vill. v. Collin Cent. Appraisal Dist.

    No. 05-23-00270-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 23, 2024)

    Appraisal Dist., 365 S.W.3d 427, 432 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied). IV. DISCUSSION

  5. Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. NTU v. Mills Cent. Appraisal Dist.

    660 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Bastrop Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Acme Brick Co. , 428 S.W.3d 911, 917 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, no pet.) (quoting Bullseye PS III LP v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist. , 365 S.W.3d 427, 432 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) ). Indeed, the Tax Code provides that "[t]he board may not review or reject an agreement between a property owner or the owner's agent and the chief appraiser under Section 1.111(e)." Tex. Tax Code § 41.01(b).

  6. Bastrop Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Acme Brick Co.

    428 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. App. 2014)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Acme Brick, the taxpayer and district reached an agreement that the taxpayer's property qualified for a pollution-control exemption.

    In the context of taxpayer challenges to Section 1.111(e) agreements, courts have held that the finality of those agreements renders irrelevant any subsequent determinations by the appraisal review board about property value. E.g., Bullseye PS III LP v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 365 S.W.3d 427, 435 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied); Sondock, 231 S.W.3d at 69. The agreements become final without approval or adoption by the appraisal review board.