Opinion

Opinion issued April 19, 2012

In The

Court of

Appeals

For The

First District

of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-11-00548-CV

———————————

Dick Deguerin,

Jerry Legard, Barbara G. Hazard, Eddie Van Dyke, Ron Stegemoller, Chuck J.

Walters, and Todd Poehlmann ,

Appellants

V.

Washington County Appraisal District and Washington County Appraisal Review Board ,

Appellees

On

Appeal from the 335th District Court

Washington

County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 34157

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Dick DeGuerin , Jerry Legard ,

Barbara G. Hazard, Eddie Van Dyke, Ron Stegemoller ,

Chuck J. Walters, and Todd Poehlmann , appeal the

trial court’s judgment determining that certain property was taxable to

them. In one issue on appeal, appellants

argue the trial court erred by determining that they held an interest in

the properties that would subject them to taxation. Appellees, Washington County Appraisal

District and Washington County Appraisal Review Board, argue Walters and Poehlmann lack standing to challenge the tax assessment.

We affirm.

Background

In 2008, the Appraisal District sent appellants tax

assessments for private airplane hangars located at the City of Brenham

Municipal Airport. Appellants protested

the assessments. The Review Board determined

the appraisals were correct. Appellants

brought an action for judicial review before the trial court. The case was submitted to the trial court on

stipulated facts. The trial court

determined that the hangars were taxable to the plaintiffs. Appellants brought this appeal.

The Stipulation of Facts submitted to the trial court

provides as follows:

1. Plaintiffs

are individuals residing in Harris County, Texas and Washington County, Texas.

2. Defendant

Washington County Appraisal District (“WCAD” ), is a

political subdivision of the State, authorized to appraise property for

property tax purposes by Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 6.01(c). Defendant Washington County Appraisal Review

Board (“ARB”), is a quasi-judicial body authorized to determine taxpayer protests

pursuant to Tex. Tax

Code Ann. §§ 6.41 & 41.01.

3. The

property involved in this suit consists of T-Hangar units located at City of

Brenham Municipal Airport. The

Plaintiffs each lease a tract of land at the Airport upon which the hangars are

located. See Exhibits “A-1” through “A-4.” The hangars are affixed to the land. Plaintiffs use the hangars for storage of

their private aircraft.

4. Plaintiffs

generally acquired their interest in the hangars through “bills of sale.” See Exhibits “B-1” through “B-2.”

5. In

2008, WCAD determined that the airport hangars were taxable. WCAD further determined that Plaintiffs owned

a taxable interest in the hangars. WCAD

notified Plaintiffs of this determination by delivering to each Plaintiff a

notice of appraised value. See Exhibit

“C.”

6. Plaintiffs

DeGuerin , Hazard, Legard , Stegermoller , and Van Dyke timely protested WCAD’s 2008

notices of appraised value determination by filing protests with the ARB. See Exhibit “D.”

7. The

ARB held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ ( DeGuerin , Hazard, Legard , Stegermoller , and Van

Dyke) protests, and determined that the hangars were taxable, and that

Plaintiffs were the owners. See Exhibit

“E.”

8. This

cause is a timely appeal from the Orders issued by the ARB on such 2008 protests.

Standing

In their brief on the merits, the Appraisal District and

the Review Board argue that Walters and Poehlmann lack standing to

challenge the tax assessment because they failed to exhaust their

administrative remedies.

A.

Standard of Review

Standing is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction,

and we review it under the same standard as subject-matter jurisdiction

generally. Tex.

Ass’n of Bus. v .

Tex. Air Control Bd. , 852

S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993). “ That

standard requires the pleader to allege facts that affirmatively demonstrate

the court’s jurisdiction to hear the cause.”

Id. When, as here, standing is raised for the

first time on appeal, we must construe the petition in the light most favorable

to the plaintiff, and if necessary ,

review the entire record to determine if any evidence supports standing. Id.

Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a

question of law. Tex.

Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda , 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004).

B.

Analysis

The Tax Code procedures for adjudicating a property-tax

valuation protest are the exclusive remedies available to property owners. See

Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.09(a) (Vernon 2008). A property owner’s failure to pursue

administrative review of the initial valuation before the appraisal review

board “deprives the courts of jurisdiction to decide most matters relating to

ad valorem taxes.” Cameron Appraisal Dist. v. Rourk , 194 S.W.3d 501, 502 (Tex. 2006).

The Appraisal District and the Review Board argue, “There

is no evidence in the record that Appellants Walters and Poehlmann timely protested

WCAD’s decision to tax their hangars.”

We agree, though we disagree that this requires their dismissal on

appeal.

All the plaintiffs, including Walters and Poehlmann ,

filed a single petition. That petition

alleges:

In June of 2008, the Plaintiffs all filed their

respective Notice of Protest seeking a hearing before the Washington County

Appraisal Review Board (“WCARB”). A

hearing was held before the WCARB on July 17, 2008. On July 28, 2008 the WCARB issued Final

Orders Determining Protest in each of the respective protests thereby upholding

the inclusion of the individual T-Hangar units in the tax rolls of Washington

County, Texas and the assessment of ad valorem taxes against the

Plaintiffs. All conditions precedent to

Plaintiffs’ right of judicial review of the WCARB’s decision having been

performed or having occurred, Plaintiffs are entitled to a trial de novo of the

WCARBS’s orders.

We hold that this is sufficient allegation of facts

to affirmatively demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction to hear the cause. See Tex. Ass’n of

Bus. , 852

S.W.2d at 446 .

The Appraisal District and the Review Board did not file a

plea to the jurisdiction or in any other way challenge Walters’s and Poehlmann ’s

standing to bring suit before the trial court.

The only evidence regarding standing in the record is contained in the

Stipulation of Facts and accompanying documents. The Stipulation of Facts asserts:

6. Plaintiffs

DeGuerin , Hazard, Legard , Stegermoller , and Van Dyke timely protested WCAD’s 2008

notices of appraised value determination by filing protests with the [Review

Board ] . . . .

7. The

[Review Board] held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ ( DeGuerin ,

Hazard, Legard , Stegermoller ,

and Van Dyke) protests, and determined that the hangars were taxable, and that

Plaintiffs were the owners . . . .

8. This

cause is a timely appeal from the Orders issued by the [Review Board] on such

2008 protests.

The accompanying documents verify that those named

plaintiffs filed protests with the Review Board and that the Review Board made

determinations for those plaintiffs.

As the Appraisal District and the Review Board argue, the

record is completely silent about whether Walters and Poehlmann timely protested

their tax assessments, obtained a determination from the Review Board, and

timely filed an appeal to the district court.

All this establishes, however, is that there is nothing to contradict

the plaintiffs’ petition, which alleged that all plaintiffs, including Walters

and Poehlmann

did each of those things. Because we

must take the pleadings as true and construe them in favor of the pleader, the

silence in the record as to Walters’s and Poehlmann ’s standing has not

deprived the trial court of jurisdiction.

See CenterPoint

Energy Entex v. R.R. Comm’n of Tex. , 213 S.W.3d

364, 368 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.) (holding appellate court must take

pleadings as true and construe them in favor of pleader in determining

standing); Tex. Ass’n of Bus. , 852 S.W.2d at 446 (holding appellate court

must construe pleading in light most favorable to pleader).

We hold that the

record does not establish that Walters and Poehlmann

lack standing to challenge their tax assessments.

Taxation of Improvements

In their sole issue on appeal, appellants argue the trial

court erred by determining that they held an interest in the properties that

would subject them to taxation.

A.

Standard of Review

The parties filed an agreed stipulation of facts with the

trial court and submitted the case for decision under rule 263 of the Texas

Rules of Civil Procedure. Tex. R. Civ. P. 263. A case submitted to the trial court upon an

agreed stipulation of facts under rule 263 is in the nature of a special

verdict and “is a request by the litigants for judgment in accordance with the

applicable law.” Harris Cnty . Appraisal

Dist. v. Transamerica Container Leasing Inc. ,

920 S.W.2d 678, 680 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied). “The trial court and the reviewing court may

not, unless provided otherwise in the agreed statement, find any facts not

conforming to the agreed statement.” State Bar of Texas v. Faubion , 821 S.W.2d 203, 205 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 1991, writ denied). The court’s judgment must declare only the

law necessarily arising from the stipulated facts. Transamerica ,

920 S.W.2d at 680 .

The question on appeal is limited to the issue of the correctness of the

trial court’s application of the law to the admitted facts. Id. This is a question of law, and, accordingly,

our review is de novo. Harris Cnty . Appraisal Dist. v. Tex. Gas Transmission Corp. , 105 S.W.3d 88, 91 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2003, pet. denied).

B.

Analysis

As summarized by appellants in oral argument, appellants

argue that they do not own any interest in the hangars and, therefore, cannot

be assessed taxes on the hangars.

The relevant portion of the Stipulation of Facts provides:

3. The

property involved in this suit consists of T-Hangar units located at City of

Brenham Municipal Airport. The

Plaintiffs each lease a tract of land at the Airport upon which the hangars are

located. See Exhibits “A-1” through “A-4.” The hangars are affixed to the land. Plaintiffs use the hangars for storage of

their private aircraft.

4. Plaintiffs

generally acquired their interest in the hangars through “bills of sale.” See Exhibits “B-1” through “B-2.”

Assuming without deciding—as argued by appellants—that the

lease agreement includes all of the improvements, including the hangar, this

does not mean that the accompanying bills of sale are without effect. The bills of sale convey fee simple in the

hangar improvements. A

leasehold is less than fee simple.

Dallas Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. Jagee Corp. , 812 S.W.2d 49,

53 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, writ denied). Regardless of what portion of fee simple in

the hangars was conveyed in the leases, the remainder was conveyed in the bills

of sale. See Hall v. Prof’l Leasing Assocs. , 550

S.W.2d 392, 394 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1977, no writ) (holding lease is merged

when lessee acquires title to reversion).

Accordingly, the appellants own the hangars.

As the parties acknowledge, the Tax Code contemplates that

separate entities can own separate interests in land and improvements. See

Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 25.04 (Vernon 2008). Those entities can each be taxed on their

separate interests. See id. Our state

constitution requires that “[a] ll occupation taxes

shall be equal and uniform upon the same class of subjects within the limits of

the authority levying the tax; but the legislature may, by general laws, exempt

from taxation public property used for public purposes . . . .” Tex. Const. art. VIII, § 2. Because

the hangars are owned by private entities and, accordingly, are not public

property, whatever exemption may have applied to the City of Brenham does not

extend to appellants.

At oral argument, appellants argued that the bills of sale

were, in fact, assignments of a leasehold interest in the hangars. While the fourth stipulation of fact puts the

term “bills of sale” in quotes, the two bills of sale included as attached

exhibits refer clearly to the sale of the hangars, not a lease. There is no mention of monthly lease

payments. There is no mention of a term

of any lease. There is no mention of any

matter typically attendant to a lease.

Accordingly, there is no evidence in the stipulations of fact or the

attached exhibits to support appellants’ claim that the bills of sale were

anything other than sales of fee simple interests in the hangars subject to any

listed encumbrances.

We overrule appellants’ sole issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Laura

Carter Higley

Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.