Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

The Tax=20 Code does not define the term Aagreement@;=20 therefore, we use the ordinary meaning of the term. = See Tex. Gov=3Dt=20 Code ' = 312.002;=20 Martin v. Harris County Appraisal Dist., 44 S.W.3d 190, 194 = (Tex.=20 App.CHouston=20 [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied). The American Heritage = Dictionary=20 defines the term agreement as Athe act of=20 agreeing; harmony of opinion; accord.@ =20 The=20 American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language = (4th ed.=20 2006). There can be no doubt that at the time HCAD = >concurred=3D = with the=20 Sondocks=3D = valuation, there was harmony of opinion between the Sondocks and = HCAD as=20 to the value of the property for approximately $880,000 (with the = Sondocks=20 receiving the benefit of HCAD rounding the estimate down to an = even=20 number). The Sondocks contend that the lack of an agreement = is=20 evidenced by the fact that the parties did not act upon the = agreement or=20 Aannounce@ = the=20 agreement to the court. We do not read Section 1.111(e) to = require=20 such actions. See Tex. Tax Code = 1.111(e). =20 Therefore, we find that the Sondocks and HCAD reached an agreement = as to=20 the value of the property. Additionally, at the time this = agreement=20 was reached between the parties, the agreement related to a matter = in=20 which a protest had been filed but not determined by the Board (in = fact,=20 the Board was in the process of hearing the matter when the = agreement was=20 reached). See id. ' = 1.111(e)(1); see also id. ' = 41.41(a)(1) (AA property=20 owner is entitled to protest before the appraisal review board the = . .=20 . determination of the appraised value of the = owner=3Ds=20 property. . . .@). =20 Because the agreement related to such a matter, at the moment it = was=20 reached, it became final. That finality rendered any = subsequent=20 determinations by the Board regarding the value, such as the order = it=20 entered, irrelevant. See id. ' = 1.111(e).=20

Our=20 finding of an agreement between the Sondocks and HCAD regarding = the value=20 of the property is also in accordance with the legislative intent = of the=20 current version of Section 1.111. In 1993, the Legislature = amended=20 section 1.111(e) by deleting the previous requirement that the = Board must=20 approve of the agreement before it became final. See = Act of=20 May 28, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 796, ' = 2, 1989=20 Tex. Gen. Laws 3591 amended by Act of May 26, 1993, 73rd = Leg.,=20 R.S., ch. 1031, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 4443 (codified at Tex. Tax = Code=20 ' = 1.111). It is apparent that the Legislature, in making such = a=20 change, intended to make it easier for parties to reach agreements = in the=20 event of a dispute involving taxable property. Our finding = of an=20 agreement here, where there was clearly a meeting of the minds as = to the=20 proper value of the property, only furthers that=20 purpose. =20

The=20 Sondocks also argue that a finding of a final agreement precluding = their=20 judicial appeal is unconstitutional in that it denies them their = due=20 process rights. It is well‑established that the = collection of taxes=20 constitutes deprivation of property; therefore, a taxing authority = must=20 afford a property owner due process of law. McKesson = Corp. v.=20 Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, Dep=3Dt of Bus.=20 Regulation of Florida, 496 U.S.=20 18, 36‑37 (1990); ABT Galveston Ltd. P=3Dship v.=20 Galveston Cent. Appraisal Dist., 137=20 S.W.3d 146, 155 (Tex. App.CHouston=20 [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.); see U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Tex. Const. art. I, ' = 19. =20 However, A[d]ue=20 process simply affords a right to be heard before final = assessment; it=20 does not detail the review mechanism.@ = ABT, 137 S.W.3d at 155 (quoting Dallas County Appraisal = Dist. v.=20 Lal, 701 S.W.2d 44, 47 (Tex. App.CDallas=20 1985, writ ref=3Dd=20 n.r.e.)). Texas courts have held that, in cases involving = taxation,=20 due process is satisfied if a taxpayer is given an opportunity to = be heard=20 before an assessment board at some stage of the proceedings. = ABT,=20 137 S.W.3d at 155; Denton Cent. Appraisal Dist. v. CIT Leasing=20 Corp., 115 S.W.3d 261, 266 (Tex. App.CFort Worth=20 2003, pet. denied); Lal, 701 S.W.2d at = 47.