OPINION
No. 04-11-00337-CV
Bobby and Joyce SEGUIN,
Appellants
v.
BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appraisal Review Board, and Michael Amezquita,
Individually,
Appellees
From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2009-CI-11323
Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: May 16, 2012
AFFIRMED
Having discovered that Bobby Seguin was no longer a Texas resident, the Bexar
Appraisal District removed the disabled veteran tax exemption from property owned by Bobby
Seguin and his wife. The Seguins appeal the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment in
favor of the Bexar Appraisal District, the Appraisal Review Board, and Chief Appraiser Michael
Amezquita. The following issues are presented in this appeal:
04-11-00337-CV
(1) Does the tax exemption for disabled veterans under section 11.22 of the Texas Tax Code
apply to non-resident disabled veterans?
(2) Does the Texas Constitution’s provision regarding the disabled veteran tax exemption
create a vested property right?
(3) Is section 11.22 unconstitutional because the Texas Legislature had no authority to limit
the exemption to disabled veterans who are residents of Texas?
(4) Does section 11.22 violate Bobby Seguin’s equal protection rights?
(5) Does section 11.22 violate Bobby Seguin’s due process rights?
(6) Are the District and Amezquita equitably estopped from removing the disabled veteran
exemption from the Seguins’ property?
(7) Can the Seguins bring non-tax code claims?
(8) Should the trial court have granted summary judgment on claims against Amezquita in
his individual capacity?
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Bobby Seguin is a 100% permanently disabled U.S. Army veteran, certified as such
under the criteria used by the United States Veterans Administration. In 1983, Bobby and his
wife Joyce purchased the home located at 6102 Topcroft in San Antonio, Texas. In 1984, Bobby
applied for and obtained a disabled veteran exemption from taxation of a portion of the assessed
value of the property as provided for by section 11.22 of the Texas Tax Code. In 1990, Bobby
moved to Alabama and has been a resident there since. As his disability ratings increased, he
applied for and obtained increased exemptions from the Bexar Appraisal District. Some of these
increases were obtained after he moved to Alabama and were effectuated by correspondence to
and from the District through the mail.
In 2009, under the direction and supervision of Chief Appraiser Amezquita, the District
conducted a review of exemptions, looking for property accounts with exemptions where the
-2-
04-11-00337-CV
owner’s mailing address differed from the subject property’s address. On February 24, 2009, the
District sent the Seguins a letter requesting information and an explanation as to why they had a
mailing address different from their parcel at 6102 Topcroft. On March 16, 2009, the Seguins
responded in a letter, stating that they relocated to Alabama in 1990 and that their disabled niece
lived at the 6102 Topcroft home. On March 18, 2009, the District sent the Seguins a letter
notifying them of the removal of the disabled veteran exemption for the tax years 2004, 2005,
2006, 2007, and 2008, because Bobby Seguin was no longer a resident of Texas. On April 2,
2009, the Seguins filed their notice of protest and requested a hearing before the Appraisal
Review Board. On May 19, 2009, the Seguins’ hearing before the Board was held by affidavit.
On June 12, 2009, the Seguins received the Board’s order, which denied their protest and
affirmed the District’s decision to remove the disabled veteran exemption for tax years 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. On July 10, 2009, the Seguins filed their original petition for review
against the District and the Board (collectively “the District”). On July 8, 2010, the Seguins filed
their second amended petition, adding Chief Appraiser Michael M. Amezquita in his individual
and official capacities “for unauthorized, unlawful, and/or ultra vires violations of law in
unilaterally removing [the Seguins’] disabled veteran’s exemption for five years, and reinstating
[the] property on the tax rolls at full appraised value.”
The Seguins and the District filed competing motions for summary judgment. The trial
court denied the Seguins’ motion and granted the District’s motion. Amezquita also filed a
motion for summary judgment on the ground that he is not a required party, is not a proper party
in his individual capacity, and is entitled to official and qualified immunity. He also argued that
the Seguins’ constitutional claims are prohibited. In its order granting Amezquita’s motion for
summary judgment, the trial court found that Amezquita was acting within the scope of his
-3-
04-11-00337-CV
authority as the chief appraiser pursuant to section 11.43(i) of the Texas Tax Code and is
therefore entitled to official immunity as a matter of law. Thus, the trial court granted
Amezquita’s motion and ordered that the Seguins take nothing in the claims against him in his
individual capacity. In the same order, the trial court denied the Seguins’ motion for summary
judgment against Amezquita. The Seguins appeal, arguing that the trial court should have
granted their motion for summary judgment and denied the District’s and Amezquita’s motions
for summary judgment.
DISABLED VETERAN TAX EXEMPTION
The Seguins argue that Bobby Seguin need not be a Texas resident in order to receive the
disabled veteran tax exemption under section 11.22 of the Texas Tax Code. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review
Statutory construction is a question of law we review de novo. Galbraith Eng’g
Consultants, Inc. v. Pochucha, 290 S.W.3d 863, 867 (Tex. 2009). Our primary objective in
construing statutes is to give effect to the legislature’s intent. Id. In ascertaining legislative intent,
if the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, we apply them according to their plain and
common meaning. Id. If the plain language of a statute does not convey the legislature’s apparent
intent, we may resort to additional construction aids, such as the objective of the law, the
legislative history, the common law or former statutory provisions, including laws on the same or
similar subject, and the consequences of a particular construction. Id. at 867-68; see also TEX.
GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 311.023(1), (3), (5) (West 2005) (allowing a court to consider the
objective of the statute, legislative history, and the consequences of a proposed construction).
Further, “we must always consider the statute as a whole rather than its isolated provisions.”
Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486, 493 (Tex. 2001). “We should not give one
-4-
04-11-00337-CV
provision a meaning out of harmony or inconsistent with other provisions, although it may be
susceptible to such a construction standing alone.” Id.
Additionally, in Texas, exemptions from taxation are not favored in the law and will not
be favorably construed. N. Alamo Water Supply Corp. v. Willacy Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 804
S.W.2d 894, 899 (Tex. 1991); Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Wilkinson, 317 S.W.3d 763, 766
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). “Statutory exemptions from taxation are subject
to strict construction because they undermine equality and uniformity by placing a greater
burden on some taxpaying businesses and individuals rather than placing the burden on all
taxpayers equally.” N. Alamo Water, 804 S.W.2d at 899. Accordingly, the burden of proof of
clearly showing that an individual falls within the statutory exemption is on the claimant. See id.
B. Disabled Veterans Exemption as Provided by Section 11.22 of the Texas Tax Code
Section 11.22 provides the following:
(a) A disabled veteran is entitled to an exemption from taxation of a portion of the
assessed value of a property the veteran owns and designates as provided by
Subsection (f) in accordance with the following schedule . . . .
(b) A disabled veteran is entitled to an exemption from taxation of $12,000 of the
assessed value of a property the veteran owns and designates as provided by
Subsection (f) of this section if the veteran: (1) is 65 years of age or older and
has a disability rating of at least 10 percent; (2) is totally blind in one or both
eyes; or (3) has lost the use of one or more limbs.
(c) If a disabled veteran who is entitled to an exemption by Subsection (a) or (b)
of this section dies, the veteran’s surviving spouse is entitled to an exemption
from taxation of a portion of the assessed value of a property the spouse owns
and designates as provided by Subsection (f) of this section. The amount of
the exemption is the amount of the veteran’s exemption at time of death. The
spouse is entitled to an exemption by this subsection only for as long as the
spouse remains unmarried. If the spouse does not survive the veteran, each of
the veteran’s surviving children who is younger than 18 years of age and
unmarried is entitled to an exemption from taxation of a portion of the
assessed value of a property the child owns and designates as provided by
Subsection (f) of this section. The amount of exemption for each eligible child
-5-
04-11-00337-CV
is computed by dividing the amount of the veteran’s exemption at time of
death by the number of eligible children.
(d) If an individual dies while on active duty as a member of the armed services
of the United States: (1) the individual’s surviving spouse is entitled to an
exemption from taxation of $5,000 of the assessed value of the property the
spouse owns and designates as provided by Subsection (f) of this section; and
(2) each of the individual’s surviving children who is younger than 18 years of
age and unmarried is entitled to an exemption from taxation of a portion of the
assessed value of a property the child owns and designates as provided by
Subsection (f) of this section, the amount of exemption for each eligible child
to be computed by dividing $5,000 by the number of eligible children.
(e) An individual who qualifies for more than one exemption authorized by this
section is entitled to aggregate the amounts of the exemptions, except that: (1)
a disabled veteran who qualifies for more than one exemption authorized by
Subsections (a) and (b) of this section is entitled to only one exemption but
may choose the greatest exemption for which he qualifies; and (2) an
individual who receives an exemption as a surviving spouse of a disabled
veteran as provided by Subsection (c) of this section may not receive an
exemption as a surviving child as provided by Subsection (c) or (d) of this
section.
(f) An individual may receive an exemption to which he is entitled by this section
against only one property, which must be the same for every taxing unit in
which the individual claims the exemption. If an individual is entitled by
Subsection (e) of this section to aggregate the amounts of more than one
exemption, he must take the entire aggregated amount against the same
property. An individual must designate on his exemption application form the
property against which he takes an exemption under this section.
(g) An individual is not entitled to an exemption by this section unless he is a
resident of this state.
(h) In this section:
(1) “Child” includes an adopted child or a child born out of wedlock whose
paternity has been admitted or has been established in a legal action.
(2) “Disability rating” means a veteran’s percentage of disability as certified
by the Veterans’ Administration or its successor or the branch of the armed
services in which the veteran served.
(3) “Disabled veteran” means a veteran of the armed services of the United
States who is classified as disabled by the Veterans’ Administration or its
successor or the branch of the armed services in which the veteran served and
whose disability is service-connected.
-6-
04-11-00337-CV
(4) “Surviving spouse” means the individual who was married to a disabled
veteran or member of the armed services at the time of the veteran’s or
member’s death.
TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 11.22 (West Supp. 2011) (emphasis added). 1 Thus, according to the plain
language of section 11.22(g), residency is a requirement in order to qualify for the exemption.
The Seguins argue in their brief, however, that “[i]t is wrong to focus only on the
sentence in section 11.22(g) [that] addresses ‘individuals’ to deny Bobby’s disabled veteran
exemption rights” because “when one considers the specific operative term ‘disabled veteran’
. . ., that language unequivocally grants a disability service related exemption to Bobby.” In other
words, it appears the Seguins are arguing that subsection (g) does not apply to Bobby Seguin
because he is a “disabled veteran,” and not “an individual.” The District responds that for
purposes of section 11.22, included within the term “individual” is “disabled veteran”. We agree
with the District. In looking at the statute as a whole, it is clear that a “disabled veteran” is a
subset of an “individual.”
The term “individual” refers to “disabled veteran”; “surviving spouse”; and “each of the
individual’s surviving children who is younger than 18 years of age and unmarried.” See TEX.
TAX CODE ANN. § 11.22 (West Supp. 2011) (emphasis added). Subsection (a) and (b) provide
that a “disabled veteran” is entitled to an exemption. See id. § 11.22(a)-(b). Subsection (c) states
that if a “disabled veteran” who is entitled to an exemption by subsection (a) or (b) dies, then the
veteran’s “surviving spouse” (or if there is no surviving spouse, then “each of the veteran’s
surviving children who is younger than 18 years of age and unmarried”) is entitled to the
exemption so long as the spouse remains unmarried. See id. § 11.22(c). Subsection (d) provides
that if an “individual” dies while on active duty as a member of the armed services of the United
1
Although this statute was amended in 2009, the language of the statute did not change in any substantive way
related to the issue before us.
-7-
04-11-00337-CV
States, then the “individual’s surviving spouse” and “each of the individual’s surviving children
who is younger than 18 years of age and unmarried” are entitled to an exemption. See id.
§ 11.22(d). Subsection (e) states that an “individual” who qualifies for more than one exemption
authorized by this section is entitled to aggregate amounts of the exemptions except that (1) a
“disabled veteran” who qualifies for more than one exemption authorized by Subsections (a) and
(b) of this section is entitled to only one exemption but may choose the greatest exemption for
which he qualifies; and (2) “an individual who receives an exemption as a surviving spouse of a
disabled veteran” may not receive an exemption as a surviving child as provided by subsection
(c) or (d) of this section. See id. § 11.22(e). Subsection (f) provides that “an individual” may
receive an exemption to which he is entitled by this section against only one property, which
must be the same for every taxing unit in which the individual claims the exemption. See id.
§ 11.22(f). Also according to subsection (f), if “an individual” is entitled by subsection (e) to
more than one exemption, he must take the entire aggregated amount against the same property.
See id. Also, “an individual” must designate on his exemption application form the property
against which he takes an exemption under this section. See id. And, finally, subsection (g) states
that “an individual” is not entitled to an exemption by this section unless he is a resident of this
state. See id. § 11.22(g). Considering the statute as a whole, it is clear that the term “individual,”
as used in section 11.22(g), refers to a “disabled veteran,” a “surviving spouse,” and to each of
the “surviving children who is younger than 18 years of age and unmarried.” Indeed, if
subsection (g) did not apply to disabled veterans, then neither would subsection (e), which refers
to disabled veterans, or subsection (f), which is referenced in subsection (a). Thus, subsection
(g)’s residency requirement applies to disabled veterans. That is, to be entitled to the exemption,
disabled veterans must be residents of Texas.
-8-
04-11-00337-CV
The Seguins alternatively argue that if subsection (g) applies to Bobby, then Texas
residency is only a requirement when one first applies for the exemption. Thus, they argue that
because Bobby met the residency requirement when he first applied for the exemption, continued
Texas residency was not required. To support this argument, they point out that subsection (g)
follows subsection (f), which requires individuals to designate on the application form the
property for which the tax exemption is claimed. Thus, they argue that subsection (g) “clarifies
an inception requirement for all qualified ‘individuals’ (and for all beneficiary groups) [to be]
Texas residents when first applying for and obtaining the exemption.” (emphasis in original). We
decline to adopt this interpretation of the statute. The fact that subsection (g) follows subsection
(f) in no way indicates that subsection (g) is intended to clarify subsection (f).
The Seguins also argue section 11.43(c) of the Tax Code supports their inception
requirement interpretation. They point to language in section 11.43(c) that states a disabled
veteran need not re-apply each year in order to be entitled to the exemption. Thus, they argue
that a disabled veteran need only meet subsection (g)’s Texas residency requirement when he
first applies for the exemption. We disagree. Section 11.43(c) provides the following:
An exemption provided by Section . . . 11.22 . . ., once allowed need not be
claimed in subsequent years, and except as otherwise provided by Subsection (e),
the exemption applies to the property until it changes ownership or the person’s
qualification for the exemption changes. However, the chief appraiser may require
a person allowed one of the exemptions in a prior year to file a new application to
confirm the person’s current qualification for the exemption by delivering a
written notice that a new application is required, accompanied by an appropriate
application form, to the person previously allowed the exemption.
TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 11.43(c) (West Supp. 2011). 2 Thus, a disabled veteran allowed an
exemption provided by section 11.22 need not re-apply unless he no longer owns the property or
his “qualification” for the exemption changes. Although “qualification” is not defined in the Tax
2
Although this statute was amended in 2011, the language of the statute did not change in any substantive way
related to the issue before us.
-9-
04-11-00337-CV
Code, subsection (g)’s residency requirement, when read in context of the entire statute, is
clearly a “qualification” of receiving the exemption. Thus, once a disabled veteran is no longer a
Texas resident, he no longer qualifies for the exemption. Further section 11.43(c) allows the
chief appraiser to require a person to re-apply for his exemption and prove his “current”
qualification for the exemption. This language does not support the Seguins’ inception
requirement interpretation.
C. Does the Texas Constitution create a vested property right in the disabled veteran tax
exemption?
According to the Seguins, article VIII, § 2(b) of the Texas Constitution “envisions the
creation of a vested property right in service-connected disabled veterans, to be implemented by
the Legislature.” In essence, the Seguins argue that once Bobby Seguin initially qualified for the
disabled veteran tax exemption in 1984, he secured a vested right to this tax exemption in
perpetuity – a “right” that could never be disturbed.
We first note that the Seguins cite no case standing for the principle that a tax exemption
like the disabled veteran tax exemption is a vested property right. We further note that article
VIII, § 2(b) has discretionary language; it provides that “[t]he legislature may, by general law,
exempt property owned by a disabled veteran or by the surviving spouse and surviving minor
children of a disabled veteran.” 3 TEX. CONST. art. 8, § 2(b) (emphasis added). Article VIII,
3
The rest of Subsection (b) provides the following:
A disabled veteran is a veteran of the armed services of the United States who is classified as
disabled by the Veterans’ Administration or by a successor to that agency or by the military
service in which the veteran served. A veteran who is certified as having a disability of less than
10 percent is not entitled to an exemption. A veteran having a disability rating of not less than 10
percent but less than 30 percent may be granted an exemption from taxation for property valued at
up to $5,000. A veteran having a disability rating of not less than 30 percent but less than 50
percent may be granted an exemption from taxation for property valued at up to $7,500. A veteran
having a disability rating of not less than 50 percent but less than 70 percent may be granted an
exemption from taxation for property valued at up to $10,000. A veteran who has a disability
rating of 70 percent or more, or a veteran who has a disability rating of not less than 10 percent
and has attained the age of 65, or a disabled veteran whose disability consists of the loss or loss of
- 10 -
04-11-00337-CV
§ 2(b)’s use of “may” grants discretion to the legislature in determining whether to enact statutes
exempting property owned by disabled veterans from taxation. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.
§ 311.016 (West 2005) (“The following constructions apply unless the context in which the word
or phrase appears necessarily requires a different construction or unless a different construction
is expressly provided by statute: (1) ‘May’ creates discretionary authority or grants permission or
a power. . . .”); Alexander Shren-Yee Cheng v. Zhaoya Wang, 315 S.W.3d 668, 672 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2010, no pet.) (“When the term ‘may’ is used in a statute it indicates the provision is
discretionary, not mandatory.”) (citing Hardy v. Marsh, 170 S.W.3d 865, 870-71 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 2005, no pet.)). Indeed, the constitutional analysis, written by the Texas Legislative
Council at the time Texas citizens voted in favor of the amendment, stated the following:
The proposed amendment to Article VIII, § 2, would permit the legislature to
grant property tax exemptions to disabled veterans and to their surviving spouses
and surviving minor children. This proposal is permissive in that it does not itself
grant a tax exemption but gives this authority to the legislature should it choose to
do so.
Proposed Constitutional Amendments Analyzed, Texas Legislative Council, at 17 (1972). In the
“Arguments For” section, the Legislative Council noted the following:
The proposed amendment is permissive, leaving the necessary details of
administration to be spelled out by the legislature, which could also revoke the
exemptions granted should the need arise.
Id. at 18 (emphasis added). Given the permissive nature of the amendment and the fact that it is
legislatively revocable, we hold that Bobby Seguin does not have a vested property right in
receiving the disabled veteran tax exemption.
use of one or more limbs, total blindness in one or both eyes, or paraplegia, may be granted an
exemption from taxation for property valued at up to $12,000. The spouse and children of any
member of the United States Armed Forces who dies while on active duty may be granted an
exemption from taxation for property valued at up to $5,000. A deceased disabled veteran's
surviving spouse and children may be granted an exemption which in the aggregate is equal to the
exemption to which the veteran was entitled when the veteran died.
TEX. CONST. art. 8, § 2(b).
- 11 -
04-11-00337-CV
D. Is section 11.22 unconstitutional?
The Seguins also argue that section 11.22 is unconstitutional because the Texas
Constitution did not grant the Texas Legislature authority to limit the class of disabled veterans
entitled to receive the tax exemption. That is, they argue the legislature had no authority to limit
the tax exemption to only disabled veterans who live in Texas. We disagree.
In evaluating whether a statute is unconstitutional, we begin with a presumption that the
statute is constitutional and defer to the legislature’s determinations of a statute’s wisdom or
expediency. Enron Corp. v. Spring Indep. Sch. Dist., 922 S.W.2d 931, 934 (Tex. 1996). We also
presume that the legislature “understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people,
that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience, and that its discriminations
are based on adequate grounds.” Id. A party who wishes to challenge the constitutionality of a
statute bears the burden of demonstrating that the enactment fails to meet constitutional
requirements. Id.
The Texas Constitution “does not exempt property from taxation; rather it authorizes the
legislature to provide specific exemptions by statute within certain parameters.” Ultrasound
Technical Servs., Inc. v. Dallas Cent. Appraisal Dist., 357 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2011, no pet. h.). “‘While the legislature may restrict’ an exemption authorized in the
constitution, it may not ‘broaden’ or ‘enlarge’ a tax exemption ‘beyond the constitutional
confines.’” Id. (quoting Dickison v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc’y, 280 S.W.2d 315, 317
(Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1955, writ ref’d)). Here, the Texas Constitution provides that the
legislature “may” exempt property owned by a “disabled veteran” from taxation. In enacting
section 11.22, the legislature acted within the discretion given to it by the constitution. The
- 12 -
04-11-00337-CV
legislature did not “broaden” or “enlarge” the tax exemption; instead it limited the exemption to
a subset of disabled veterans: those disabled veterans who live in Texas.
Nevertheless, the Seguins argue that the legislature had no constitutional authority to
limit the class of disabled veterans who would be entitled to the tax exemption because article
VII, section 2(b) did not by specific language grant the legislature power to limit the class of
disabled veterans. In support of this argument, the Seguins cite Martinez v. Dallas Central
Appraisal District, 339 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.). In that case, although the
homeowner owned only a fractional interest in the property, he argued that he was
constitutionally entitled to school tax homestead exemptions of at least $20,000 because (1) the
constitution grants “an adult” a $15,000 school tax exemption, and (2) the constitution and the
tax code grant “an individual” a minimum $5,000 exemption when a taxing unit, such as the
taxing unit in the case, allows an optional homestead amount. Id. at 193. The homeowner
claimed that section 11.41(a) of the Tax Code, which provides for the application of exemptions
based upon a person’s fractional ownership interest in property, was unconstitutional. Id. The
Dallas Court of Appeals emphasized the high burden placed on a party challenging the
constitutionality of a statute. Id. at 194. The court held that by “[o]ffering only unsupported
argument that the law ‘should not apply,’” the homeowner failed “to meet this burden.” Id. The
court then stated the following:
In addition, [the homeowner]’s argument ignores the constitutional provision
which states “[t]he legislature may by general law prescribe procedures for the
administration of residence homestead exemptions.” TEX. CONST. art. VIII, § 1-
b(e). Pursuant to this authorization, the legislature enacted section 11.41(a) of the
tax code.
Id. Extrapolating from this language, the Seguins argue that because article VIII, § 2(b) does not
specifically state that the legislature may limit any disabled veteran tax exemption to a subset of
- 13 -
04-11-00337-CV
disabled veterans, the legislature therefore did not have any authority to grant an exemption to
only disabled veterans who live in Texas. We decline to follow the Seguins’ rationale.
Instead, we find more persuasive the reasoning by the same Dallas Court of Appeals in
the more recent case of Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
357 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet. h.). In that case, a for-profit school argued
that section 11.21 of the Tax Code, which provides a tax exemption only for non-profit schools,
was unconstitutional. Id. at 175. The for-profit school emphasized that the language of article
VIII, § 2(a) of the Texas Constitution did not provide for any such limitation. Id. Thus, the for-
profit school argued the legislature exceeded its authority by limiting the tax exemption to non-
profit schools. Id. The Dallas Court of Appeals rejected this argument and held that section 11.21
was constitutional. Id. In so holding, the court noted that the Texas Constitution itself does not
exempt property from taxation; rather it authorizes the legislature to provide specific exemptions
by statute within certain parameters. Id. at 177. The court explained that “while the legislature
may restrict an exemption authorized in the constitution, it may not ‘broaden’ or ‘enlarge’ a tax
exemption beyond the constitutional confines.” Id. (citation omitted). The court emphasized that
the constitutional provision provides that the legislature “may” exempt “schools” from taxation.
Id. at 178. The legislature then enacted section 11.21, which exempts a subset of schools – non-
profit schools. Id. According to the Dallas Court of Appeals, the “legislature is empowered to
‘restrict’ this statutory exemption authorized by the constitution and has not ‘enlarged’ it
‘beyond the constitutional confines.’” Id. (citing Dickison v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins.
Soc’y, 280 S.W.2d 315, 317 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1955, writ ref’d)). Thus, the court
concluded that the school’s constitutional challenge was not meritorious. Id.
- 14 -
04-11-00337-CV
The Seguins attempt to distinguish Ultrasound by arguing that article VIII, § 2(a), the
constitutional provision at issue in Ultrasound, contains the following specific language: “the
legislature by general law may provide eligibility limitations for the exemption and may impose
sanctions related to the exemption in furtherance of the taxation policy of this subsection.”
However, reading section 2(a) as a whole, this language appears not to relate to the not-for-profit
and for-profit school distinction, but rather to “any property owned by a church or by a strictly
religious society that owns an actual place of religious worship.” Indeed the limiting language
the Seguins point to in section 2(a) precedes the language relating to creating a tax-exempt status
for schools. 4 Further, in Ultrasound, the Dallas Court of Appeals did not rely on such language
4
Article VIII, section 2(a) provides the following:
All 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; actual places of religious worship, also any property
owned by a church or by a strictly religious society for the exclusive use as a dwelling place for
the ministry of such church or religious society, and which yields no revenue whatever to such
church or religious society; provided that such exemption shall not extend to more property than is
reasonably necessary for a dwelling place and in no event more than one acre of land; any
property owned by a church or by a strictly religious society that owns an actual place of religious
worship if the property is owned for the purpose of expansion of the place of religious worship or
construction of a new place of religious worship and the property yields no revenue whatever to
the church or religious society, provided that the legislature by general law may provide eligibility
limitations for the exemption and may impose sanctions related to the exemption in furtherance of
the taxation policy of this subsection; any property that is owned by a church or by a strictly
religious society and is leased by that church or strictly religious society to a person for use as a
school, as defined by Section 11.21, Tax Code, or a successor statute, for educational purposes;
places of burial not held for private or corporate profit; solar or wind-powered energy devices; all
buildings used exclusively and owned by persons or associations of persons for school purposes
and the necessary furniture of all schools and property used exclusively and reasonably necessary
in conducting any association engaged in promoting the religious, educational and physical
development of boys, girls, young men or young women operating under a State or National
organization of like character; also the endowment funds of such institutions of learning and
religion not used with a view to profit; and when the same are invested in bonds or mortgages, or
in land or other property which has been and shall hereafter be bought in by such institutions
under foreclosure sales made to satisfy or protect such bonds or mortgages, that such exemption of
such land and property shall continue only for two years after the purchase of the same at such sale
by such institutions and no longer, and institutions engaged primarily in public charitable
functions, which may conduct auxiliary activities to support those charitable functions; and all
laws exempting property from taxation other than the property mentioned in this Section shall be
null and void.
TEX. CONST. art. VIII, § 2(a) (emphasis added).
- 15 -
04-11-00337-CV
in the Texas Constitution for its holding other than the discretionary language of “may.” See
Ultrasound, 357 S.W.3d at 178 (“The constitution provides the legislature ‘may’ exempt
‘schools’ from taxation.”).
We therefore hold that the legislature did not exceed its constitutional authority in
limiting the disabled veteran tax exemption to those disabled veterans who reside in Texas.
E. Were Bobby Seguin’s constitutional rights violated?
1. Equal Protection
The Seguins argue Bobby’s equal protection rights were violated because “Bobby
qualified, and was certified, under VA criteria and the Texas disabled veteran’s statute, then was
wrongly and prejudicially treated differently than other similarly disabled resident veterans
without a reasonable basis.” The Seguins argue that strict-scrutiny review should apply because
“Bobby arbitrarily lost a fundamental right afforded to all other qualified Texas service-
connected disabled veterans.”
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids a state from “deny[ing]
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” First Am. Title Ins. Co. v.
Combs, 258 S.W.3d 627, 638-39 (Tex. 2008) (quoting Fourteenth Amendment). “However, the
Supreme Court has recognized that ‘most laws differentiate in some fashion between classes of
persons’; therefore, unless a classification ‘jeopardizes exercise of a fundamental right or
categorizes on the basis of an inherently suspect characteristic,’ the law will be upheld as long as
it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Id. at 639 (quoting Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505
U.S. 1, 10 (1992)). Further, “Texas courts have viewed tax legislation as deserving special
consideration.” Vinson v. Burgess, 773 S.W.2d 263, 266 (Tex. 1989).
- 16 -
04-11-00337-CV
As noted, the tax exemption granted to disabled veterans does not create a fundamental
right. In their reply brief, the Seguins also argue (in a conclusory fashion) that Bobby is “a
member of a special class of citizen soldiers.” They cite no authority for the proposition that such
a class of soldiers is a suspect class entitled to heightened review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(h).
Thus, rational-basis review applies, and we will uphold the law as long as it is rationally related
to a legitimate state interest. First Am. Title Ins., 258 S.W.3d at 639.
In support of their argument that section 11.22(g)’s residency requirement is not
rationally related to any legitimate state interest, the Seguins rely on HL Farm Corp. v. Self, 877
S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1994). In HL Farm, the supreme court held that a Texas statute denying an
open-space land designation to land owned by a nonresident alien violated the equal protection
clause of the Texas Constitution. Id. at 292. In applying rational-basis review, the supreme court
concluded that the government’s purpose of preserving open-space land was based upon use of
land, and not ownership of land. Id. According to the court, “[a] ‘foreign corporation’ owned by
a nonresident alien may contribute to the preservation of open-space land as well as any Texas
individual or legal entity.” Id. Thus, the court reasoned that no rational basis existed for denying
an open-space land designation to a foreign corporation owned by a nonresident alien. Id.
In this case, all parties agree that the purpose of the disabled veteran tax exemption was
to recognize the contributions and sacrifices of disabled veterans and their families. It is rational
for the legislature to limit such a token of appreciation to those disabled veterans (and qualifying
family members) who reside in Texas because Texas residents bear the primary responsibility of
paying for government, not merely through property tax, but through other taxes which are
principally imposed on residents. It is the residents of Texas who will principally bear the costs
of providing services due to the revenue lost by the tax exemption. Thus, we conclude that
- 17 -
04-11-00337-CV
section 11.22(g)’s residency requirement is rationally related to a legitimate governmental
purpose.
2. Due Process
The Seguins also argue that Bobby Seguin’s due process rights were violated. A violation
of substantive due process occurs when the government deprives individuals of constitutionally
protected rights by an arbitrary use of power. Byers v. Patterson, 219 S.W.3d 514, 525 (Tex.
App.—Tyler 2007, no pet.). To prevail on a substantive due process claim, the claimant must
establish that it held a constitutionally protected property right to which the Fourteenth
Amendment’s due process protection applies. Id. Here, Bobby Seguin does not have a
constitutionally protected right in the disabled veteran tax exemption. Thus, there has been no
due process violation.
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
The Seguins alternatively argue that the District and Amezquita are equitably estopped
from removing the tax exemption because the District has been mailing notices to the Seguins’
out-of-state address since 1990 and was thus aware that the Seguins were no longer Texas
residents. However, the doctrine of “unclean hands” requires that one who comes seeking equity
must come with clean hands. ANCO Ins. Servs. of Houston, Inc. v. Romero, 27 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2000, pet. denied). Pursuant to the Tax Code, a disabled veteran does not
need to claim the disabled veteran tax exemption unless ownership of the property changes or the
person’s qualification for the exemption changes. TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 11.43(c) (West 2011).
Once Bobby Seguin was no longer a Texas resident, his qualification for the disabled tax
exemption changed. See id. § 11.22. The Seguins, however, never notified the District that they
- 18 -
04-11-00337-CV
were no longer Texas residents until they responded to the letter sent by the District in 2009.
Thus, it cannot be said that the Seguins have come in equity with clean hands.
Further, waiver and estoppel do not generally apply to governmental entities. In re S.A.P.,
156 S.W.3d 574, 577 (Tex. 2005). “When a governmental unit is exercising governmental
powers it is not subject to estoppel.” Leeco Gas & Oil Co. v. Cnty. of Nueces, 736 S.W.2d 629,
630 (Tex. 1987). The Seguins have made no showing of why this general rule should not apply
here. Moreover, there is no showing that the District and Amezquita intentionally relinquished
their rights merely by mailing notices to an address. See City of Victoria v. Hoffman, 809 S.W.2d
603, 605 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied) (explaining that waiver is “an
intentional relinquishment of a known right or intentional conduct inconsistent with claiming that
right”).
NON-TAX CODE CLAIMS
The Seguins argue that governmental immunity does not apply because “the sole purpose
of the Seguins’ claim is not to obtain money damages, but to establish that Chief Appraiser
Amezquita acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act.” They
criticize Amezquita for removing the disabled veteran exemption from the property at issue.
They argue “a declaratory judgment action provides a vehicle for relief which is not barred by
the doctrine of governmental immunity” and cite Cobb v. Harrington, 190 S.W.2d 709 (Tex.
1945). We need not determine whether governmental immunity bars the Seguins’ claims because
the assumption in the Seguins’ argument is that Amezquita acted without legal authority. Under
the Tax Code, the chief appraiser of the appraisal district administers exemptions, determines an
applicant’s right to an exemption, confirms the person’s current qualification for an exemption,
and investigates the qualification. See TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 11.43(a), (c), (h) (West Supp.
- 19 -
04-11-00337-CV
2011); id. § 11.45(a) (West 2008). “If the chief appraiser discovers an exemption that is not
required to be claimed annually has been erroneously allowed in any one of the five preceding
years, the chief appraiser shall add the property or appraised value that was erroneously
exempted for each year to the appraised roll . . . .” TEX. TAX. CODE ANN. § 11.43(i) (West Supp.
2011) (emphasis added), see id. § 25.21 (West 2008). Thus, Amezquita had legal authority to
remove the tax exemption from the Seguins’ property. Further, we note that Amezquita correctly
concluded that as a nonresident of Texas, Bobby Seguin was not entitled to the disabled veteran
tax exemption.
CLAIMS AGAINST AMEZQUITA IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Amezquita and dismissed all
claims against him in his individual capacity. Once again, the Seguins claims against Amezquita
are premised on him having acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely
ministerial act. However, as noted, Amezquita did have legal authority to remove the tax
exemption.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that in order to be entitled to receive the disabled veteran tax exemption, a
disabled veteran must meet section 11.22(g)’s Texas residency requirement. We further hold that
article VIII, § 2(b) does not create a vested property right and that the Texas Legislature had
authority to impose section 11.22(g)’s residency requirement. Moreover, neither Bobby Seguin’s
equal protection rights nor his due process rights were violated. The District and Amezquita are
not equitably estopped from removing the disabled veteran tax exemption from the Seguins’
property. The trial court correctly granted summary judgment on the Seguins’ non-tax code
claims. And, finally, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment on the Seguins’ claims
- 20 -
04-11-00337-CV
against Amezquita in his individual capacity. 5 Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we affirm
the summary judgments of the trial court.
Karen Angelini, Justice
5
Having so held, we need not reach the remaining arguments brought by the Seguins.
- 21 -
Bobby and Joyce Seguin v. Bexar Appraisal District and Appraisal Review Board and Michael Amezquita, Individually
Combined Opinion