Supreme Court
Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. NTU, LLC v. Wilbarger Cnty. Appraisal Dist. consolidated for oral argument with Mills Cent. Appraisal Dist., v. Elec. Delivery Co. NTU LLC
- Case numbers: 23-0138 and 23-0145
- Legal category: Taxes
- Subtype: Tax Protests
- Set for oral argument: March 21, 2024
Case Summary
The issue is whether Oncor can revise the description of its property on the appraisal roll after having settled the total value of its property on the roll with the appraisal district.
In 2019, Oncor’s predecessor-in-interest protested the value of its transmission lines to be included on the appraisal rolls of Wilbarger and Mills counties. After an appraisal, the prior owner entered a settlement with both counties’ appraisal districts agreeing to the total value of the transmission lines on each county’s appraisal roll.
In 2020, Oncor acquired the company that owned the transmission lines and discovered that the company had sent incorrect data to an appraisal firm. This mistake inflated the agreed values in the settlement agreements and Oncor’s tax bills. Oncor sought to correct the appraisal rolls with each county’s appraisal review board. Both appraisal review boards denied the claims because the Texas Tax Code states that settlement agreements are “final.” Oncor sought review in district court, winning in Wilbarger County and losing in Mills County.
In the Wilbarger County case, the court of appeals reversed and rendered for the taxing entities, holding that the value in the settlement agreement was final and nonreviewable. Oncor petitioned the Supreme Court for review.
In the Mills County case, the court of appeals reversed in part and remanded, holding that the doctrine of mutual mistake prevented that settlement agreement from becoming final. The taxing entities petitioned the Supreme Court for review.
In the Supreme Court, Oncor argues that the courts have jurisdiction to consider whether the settlement agreements are binding as to this dispute and whether the agreements are voidable for mutual mistake. The taxing entities argue that the Tax Code’s provision making settlement agreements final is jurisdictional, or is at least determinative of the merits, and that Oncor’s current tax protest fails.
The Court granted both petitions for review and consolidated the cases for oral argument.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.