San Antonio Plumbing Supply Co., 391 S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tex. Power Co., 73 S.W.3d at 215 Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. The burden of proof is on the movant, and all doubts about the existence of a genuine issue of material fact are resolved against the movant. In a traditional summary judgment case, the issue on appeal is whether the movant met its summary judgment burden by establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
DENTON COUNTY CAD TRIAL
We will first decide whether the trial court erred in denying the Appraisal District's traditional motion for summary judgment. The reviewing court should render the judgment that the trial court should have rendered. When both parties move for summary judgment and the trial court grants one motion and denies the other, the reviewing court should review both parties' summary judgment evidence and determine all questions presented. Accordingly, the trial court ordered the Appraisal District to remove the property from its 1998 appraisal roll. The trial court expressly ruled in its summary judgment that the addition of the property to the 1998 appraisal roll was void and that the Appraisal District had not acquired jurisdiction to appraise or list the property for taxation due to the district's failure to give CIT notice of appraised value. The trial court granted CIT's motion and denied the Appraisal District's motion.
DENTON COUNTY CAD CODE
In response, the Appraisal District filed a traditional motion for summary judgment alleging, among other things, that CIT's failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies provided by the Code preempted it from obtaining judicial review. CIT filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment alleging that there was no evidence to show that the Appraisal District had sent it the notice of appraised value required under section 25.19 of the Code. The Denton Appraisal Review Board held a hearing on CIT's notice of protest on March 22, 2000, and determined that the protest was untimely.ĬIT then filed suit in the 393rd District Court of Denton County, Texas, to have the aircraft removed from the appraisal roll. 25.19 (Vernon 2001).(2) CIT also sought an interstate allocation of the 1998 value of the aircraft under section 25.25 of the Code because it had not continually remained at the location indicated on the appraisal roll. In March 2000, after paying the taxes assessed, CIT filed a notice of protest alleging that the Appraisal District had failed to provide it with notice of the appraised value of the aircraft as required by section 25.19 of the Texas Tax Code ("the Code"). Factual and Procedural BackgroundĬIT is the owner of an airplane that was appraised for taxation by the Appraisal District for the 1998 tax year.(1) In November 1998, the Denton County Tax Office notified CIT that the property had been added to the 1998 appraisal roll and informed CIT of the appraised value of the aircraft, the amount of taxes owed on the property, and the delinquency date for those taxes. In five issues, the Appraisal District complains that the trial court erred in granting CIT's no-evidence motion for summary judgment and denying the Appraisal District's motion for summary judgment. FROM THE 393RD DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTYĭenton Central Appraisal District and Denton Appraisal Review Board (collectively referred to as "the Appraisal District") appeal the trial court's entry of a no-evidence summary judgment for CIT Leasing Corp.
0 kommentar(er)
