April Clark v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 239th District Court of Brazoria County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 1st District Court of Appeals » 2009 » April Clark v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 239th District Court of Brazoria County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 01-07-00993-CR

Case Date: 03/05/2009

Plaintiff: DL Louetta Village Square LP and JL Louetta Village Square LP a/k/a Nomura Credit Capital Inc as the

Defendant: Harris County Appraisal District--Appeal from 280th District Court of Harris County

Preview:Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 22, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals
_______________ NO. 14-08-00549-CV _______________ DL LOUETTA VILLAGE SQUARE LP AND JL LOUETTA VILLAGE SQUARE LP A/K/A NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL INC., AND NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL INC., AS THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS, Appellants V. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellee On Appeal from the 280th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2007-53175

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this ad valorem property-tax case, DL Louetta Village Square LP and JL Louetta Village Square LP a/k/a Nomura Credit & Capital Inc., and Nomura Credit & Capital Inc., As The Property Owners and The Property Owners, appeal the trial court's order granting the plea to the jurisdiction filed by appellee, Harris County Appraisal District ("HCAD"), and dismissing appellants' suit without prejudice. We affirm.

I. B ACKGROUND Nomura Credit & Capital Inc. ("Nomura") protested HCAD's appraisal of the value of certain property for tax year 2007. The Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District ("the Board") issued an order, determining the appraisal was incorrect and reducing the value. Nomura sued HCAD to appeal the Board's order, claiming, among other contentions, that the property was excessively and unequally appraised. Nomura's name on the petition was followed by the language, "as the property owners and the property owners." Although Nomura filed the protest and subsequent suit for judicial review, it was not the owner of the property as of January 1, 2007. Therefore, HCAD filed a plea to the

jurisdiction, asserting Nomura lacked standing to file suit. Subsequently, a first amended petition was filed, adding DL Louetta Village Square LP and JL Louetta Village Square LP a/k/a Nomura Credit & Capital Inc. (collectively "the Louetta parties") as plaintiffs and again naming Nomura as a plaintiff.1 Again, these names were followed by the language, "as the property owners and the property owners." These plaintiffs all filed a document containing their response to the plea to the jurisdiction and a motion to substitute the "true name of the Plaintiffs" pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 28. HCAD filed a reply and supplemental reply to this document, asserting the trial court also lacked jurisdiction over the Loretta parties' claims.2 On May 29, 2008, the

This plaintiff was actually named as "Nomura Credkt & Capital Inc.," which we construe as merely a mispelling of "Nomura Credit & Capital Inc." because the record does not reflect any entity named "Nomura Credkt & Capital Inc." was ever involved in this dispute. Additionally. in their brief, appellants refer to "Nomura Credit Capital Inc." omitting the "&" from the name, which we construe as also a misspelling of "Nomura Credit & Capital Inc.," considering it was the only "Nomura" name involved in this dispute. In their replies, HCAD actually referred to the Louetta parties as "DL Louetta Village, LLC" and "JL Louetta Village, LLC,"which were slightly different than the names on the amended petition. Nonetheless, we construe the replies as challenging jurisdiction over the parties whose names are on the amended petition because they are the only "Louetta" entities who have appeared in this suit.
2

1

2

trial court signed an "Order of Dismissal," granting the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing the suit without prejudice for want of jurisdiction.3 II. A NALYSIS In their sole issue, appellants contend the trial court erred by granting HCAD's plea to the jurisdiction.4 A. Standard of Review Subject-matter jurisdiction, including standing, cannot be waived. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445

Download 86419.pdf