Hartman Income Reit PPTY Holdings, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Dallas Central Appraisal District

Citation: Not availableDocket: 07-11-00079-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 23, 2012; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Hartman Income REIT PPTY Holdings, LLC (Hartman) appeals a judgment from the 134th District Court of Dallas County, which denied its claim against the Dallas Central Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board for allegedly assigning an excessive value to Hartman's property in 2009. Hartman raises thirteen issues on appeal, primarily focusing on the trial court's admission of defense exhibit 1B, which was not disclosed during discovery, and the sufficiency of the evidence and legal accuracy of the trial court's findings.

The appellate court affirms the trial court's decision, addressing issues related to the admission of exhibit 1B. Hartman contends that the exhibit was improperly admitted because it had not been disclosed despite discovery requests. The trial court had admitted the exhibit and denied Hartman's motion for new trial. The standard of review for such admissions is one of abuse of discretion, requiring that the trial court's decision significantly deviates from established rules or principles.

During trial, Hartman's counsel objected to the admission of exhibit 1B on the grounds of lack of prior disclosure and foundation. However, after a discussion in court, Hartman later withdrew its objection regarding the failure to produce the exhibit, which the appellate court found waived any complaint about its admission. The court also noted that a party has a duty to supplement discovery but found no requirement for repeated disclosures on the trial day. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that Hartman failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court concerning the admission of the exhibit.

Hartman's objection centered on the District's failure to produce exhibit 1B during trial, which Hartman argued was harmful due to its reliance on incorrect data for property valuations. While Hartman initially accepted the District's claim that exhibit 1B had been disclosed prior to trial, it later moved for a new trial after discovering the exhibit had not been provided. Hartman's contention was that the District used data from the wrong tax year (2010 instead of 2009) in the valuation comparisons. The trial court ultimately overruled Hartman's motion for a new trial, which Hartman claimed was erroneous.

The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision for several reasons: (1) Hartman failed to contemporaneously object to the admission of exhibit 1B during the trial, which was necessary to preserve the issue for appeal; (2) both exhibits 1A and 1B were admitted, and Hartman did not contest the admission of 1A, which encompassed the factors leading to the valuation in 1B; (3) the values in exhibit 1B were generally lower than those in 2009 documentation provided by Hartman, indicating that Hartman was disadvantaged by the lower comparables used, not harmed by them. Hartman could not cite any legal authority supporting a new trial based on an error that benefitted the complainant. Moreover, the court overruled Hartman's remaining issues regarding the sufficiency of evidence supporting the trial court’s findings or conclusions.

Hartman's arguments regarding findings 1B, 1C, and several others consist largely of conclusory statements, such as the claims of insufficient evidence and assertions that the findings contradict the evidence or are negated by correspondence from Appellee's counsel. Hartman mentions evidence related to the unequal appraisal of real property and argues that Appellee's evidence warranted a valuation reduction, but fails to provide substantive analysis or discussion to support these claims. The brief lacks clarity on why specific testimonies diminish the credibility of the District's expert valuation of Hartman's property at $6,826,110. Many of the findings challenged are detailed and include multiple factual statements, but Hartman does not specify whether these are also contested. The brief does not adequately explain why the criteria used by Hartman's experts are relevant, nor does it present a coherent argument, relying instead on bare assertions that do not meet the requirements for appellate review outlined in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(h). Consequently, Hartman's challenges to the findings and Conclusions of Law Nos. 6, 9, 10, and 11 are deemed waived due to insufficient briefing. All issues raised by Hartman are overruled, and the original judgment is affirmed.