Preview
FILED
10/14/2022 8:59 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Treva Parker-Ayodele DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-22-10206
UW HOSPITALITY INC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff(s), §
§
v. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL §
DISTRICT, §
§
Defendant. § 192nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANT ’S ORIGINAL ANSWER WITH DISCLOSURES
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Defendant Dallas Central Appraisal District (hereinafter “Defendant”)
and files this Original Answer with Disclosures to P1aintiff(s’) Original Petition, and would
respectfully show unto the Court as follows:
I.
Defendant denies generally and singularly each and every allegation contained within
Plaintiff(s’) Original Petition and demands strict proof thereof.
II.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, each and every Plaintiff
is hereby requested to disclose, within thirty (30) days of service of this request, the
information or material described in Rule 194.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that upon
conclusion of a trial upon the merits that Plaintiff(s) take nothing; that Defendant recovers its
costs as well as any and all other relief in law and equity to which it is justly entitled.
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER WITH DISCLOSURES — PAGE 1
III.
DISCLOSURES
1. CORRECT NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO THE LAWSUIT
The conect parties are named.
2. THE NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF ANY
POTENTIAL PARTIES
None.
3. THE LEGAL THEORIES AND, IN GENERAL, THE FACTUAL BASES 0F
THE RESPONDING PARTY’S CLAIMS OR DEFENSES (the responding
party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial)
Defendant employs the generally accepted appraisal techniques to value property —
i.e. income, cost and market data to value the subject property for ad valorem
taxation. Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief because Defendant complied with
Chapter 23 of the Texas Property Tax Code when valuing the subject property and
the market value of the subject property is equal to or greater than the value listed
for the subject property on the Appraisal Roll. The appraised value of the subject
property does not exceed its market value. The appraised value of the subject
property does not exceed the median appraised value of a reasonable number of
comparable properties appropriately adjusted. As a result, Plaintiff(s) is/are not
entitled to recovery of attorneys’ fees.
4. THE AMOUNT AND ANY METHOD OF CALCULATING ECONOMIC
DAMAGES
Defendant is unaware of any economic damages other than ad valorem taxations
imposed against the subject property for the tax year in issue. Ad valorem taxes
are based on the market value of the property so if the subject property’s market
value is less than the value certified on the Appraisal Roll for subject property, then
the Plaintiff(s) will pay fewer taxes for the subject property than required under the
Orders Determining Protest.
5. THE NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PERSONS
HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF RELEVANT FACTS, AND A BRIEF
STATEMENT OF EACH IDENTIFIED PERSON’S CONNECTION WITH
THE CASE
Steve Brown, Director of Legal Services
Breah Morrison, Litigation Specialist
Jimmy Cox, Commercial Manager
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER WITH DISCLOSURES — PAGE 2
Michael Robinson, Residential Manager
Robert Evans, Business Personal Property Manager
Shane Docherty, Appraisal Manager
Members of the Dallas County Appraisal Review Board who heard and determined
Plaintiff(s’) protest
Dallas Central Appraisal District
2949 North Stemmons Freeway
Dallas, Texas 75247
(214) 631-0520
Mr. Brown is the Director of Legal Services and has knowledge of the appraisal
methodology used to value the subject property in this matter. Breah Morrison is a
Litigation Specialist and has knowledge of the appraisal methodology used to value
the subject property in this matter. Jimmy Cox is the Commercial Property Manager
and Shane Docherty is the Manager of Appraisal whose departments appraised the
subject property. Robert Evans is the Business Personal Property Manager and has
knowledge of the appraisal methodology used to value the subject property in this
matter. Michael Robinson is the Manager of Residential Appraisal and has
knowledge of the appraisal methodology used to value the subject property in this
matter. These persons reviewed the information utilized by the Dallas Central
Appraisal District to appraise the subject property for the tax year at issue. In
addition, members of the Appraisal Review Board who heard the protest may have
knowledge of the hearing and their decision in that matter. Further, Plaintiff(s) and
its/their representatives also may have relevant knowledge.
Defendant further discloses, designates, adopts and incorporates by reference any
person or persons having knowledge of relevant facts subsequently designated or
disclosed by any party herein.
6. A COPY — OR A DESCRIPTION BY CATEGORY AND LOCATION — OF
ALL DOCUMENTS, ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION,
AND TANGIBLE THINGS THAT THE RESPONDING PARTY HAS IN ITS
POSSESSION, CUSTODY, OR CONTROL, AND MAY USE TO SUPPORT
ITS CLAIMS OR DEFENSES, UNLESS THE USE WOULD BE SOLELY
FOR IMPEACHMENT
None at this time. Defendant will supplement when an expert report is prepared.
7. ANY INDEMNITY AND INSURING AGREEMENTS DESCRIBED IN
RULE 192.3(1)
None.
8. ANY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS DESCRIBED IN RULE 192.3(g)
None.
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER WITH DISCLOSURES — PAGE 3
9. ANY WITNESS STATEMENTS DESCRIBED IN RULE 192.3(h)
None, other than the statements made at the Appraisal Review Board Hearing, if
any. The recording of said hearing will be made available for Plaintiff(s)’ review
at the Appraisal District upon reasonable notice.
10. IN A SUIT ALLEGING PHYSICAL OR MENTAL INJURY AND
DAMAGES FROM THE OCCURRENCE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF
THE CASE, ALL MEDICAL RECORDS AND BILLS THAT ARE
REASONABLY RELATED TO THE INJURIES OR DAMAGES
ASSERTED OR, IN LIEU THEREOF, AN AUTHORIZATION
PERMITTIN G THE DISCLOSURE OF SUCH MEDICAL RECORDS AND
BILLS
Not applicable.
11. IN A SUIT ALLEGING PHYSICAL 0R MENTAL INJURY AND
DAMAGES FROM THE OCCURRENCE THAT IS THE SUBJECT 0F
THE CASE, ALL MEDICAL RECORDS AND BILLS OBTAINED BY THE
RESPONDING PARTY BY VIRTUE OF AN AUTHORIZATION
FURNISHED BY THE REQUESTING PARTY
Not applicable.
12. THE NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF ANY PERSON
WHO MAY BE DESIGNATED AS A RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY
None.
DEFENDANT’s ORIGINAL ANSWER WITH DISCLOSURES — PAGE 4
Respectfully submitted,
NICHOLS, JACKSON, DILLARD,
HAGER & SMITH, L.L.P.
By: /s/ Braden W. Metcalf
Peter G. Smith
Bar Card No. 18664300
psmith@njdhs.com
Braden W. Metcalf
Bar Card No. 24055969
bmetcalf@njdhs.com
500 N. Akard, Suite 1800
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 965-9900
(214) 965-0010 FAX
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on October 14, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document was served on Plaintiff(s’) attorney of record in accordance with the Texas Rules
of Civil Procedure Via electronic service.
/s/ Braden W. Metcalf
Braden W. Metcalf
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER WITH DISCLOSURES — PAGE 5
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this
document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below.
The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate
of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Kristi Love on behalf of Braden Metcalf
Bar No. 24055969
klove@njdhs.com
Envelope ID: 69256976
Status as of 10/17/2022 11:10 AM CST
Associated Case Party: UW HOSPITALITY INC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
ESERVE FRAZIERLAW ESERVICE@FRAZIERLAWPLLC.COM 10/14/2022 8:59:23 PM SENT
Preview
FILED 10/14/2022 8:59 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Treva Parker-Ayodele DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-22-10206 UW HOSPITALITY INC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff(s), § § v. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL § DISTRICT, § § Defendant. § 192nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT ’S ORIGINAL ANSWER WITH DISCLOSURES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES Defendant Dallas Central Appraisal District (hereinafter “Defendant”) and files this Original Answer with Disclosures to P1aintiff(s’) Original Petition, and would respectfully show unto the Court as follows: I. Defendant denies generally and singularly each and every allegation contained within Plaintiff(s’) Original Petition and demands strict proof thereof. II. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, each and every Plaintiff is hereby requested to disclose, within thirty (30) days of service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that upon conclusion of a trial upon the merits that Plaintiff(s) take nothing; that Defendant recovers its costs as well as any and all other relief in law and equity to which it is justly entitled. DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER WITH DISCLOSURES — PAGE 1 III. DISCLOSURES 1. CORRECT NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO THE LAWSUIT The conect parties are named. 2. THE NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF ANY POTENTIAL PARTIES None. 3. THE LEGAL THEORIES AND, IN GENERAL, THE FACTUAL BASES 0F THE RESPONDING PARTY’S CLAIMS OR DEFENSES (the responding party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial) Defendant employs the generally accepted appraisal techniques to value property — i.e. income, cost and market data to value the subject property for ad valorem taxation. Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief because Defendant complied with Chapter 23 of the Texas Property Tax Code when valuing the subject property and the market value of the subject property is equal to or greater than the value listed for the subject property on the Appraisal Roll. The appraised value of the subject property does not exceed its market value. The appraised value of the subject property does not exceed the median appraised value of a reasonable number of comparable properties appropriately adjusted. As a result, Plaintiff(s) is/are not entitled to recovery of attorneys’ fees. 4. THE AMOUNT AND ANY METHOD OF CALCULATING ECONOMIC DAMAGES Defendant is unaware of any economic damages other than ad valorem taxations imposed against the subject property for the tax year in issue. Ad valorem taxes are based on the market value of the property so if the subject property’s market value is less than the value certified on the Appraisal Roll for subject property, then the Plaintiff(s) will pay fewer taxes for the subject property than required under the Orders Determining Protest. 5. THE NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PERSONS HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF RELEVANT FACTS, AND A BRIEF STATEMENT OF EACH IDENTIFIED PERSON’S CONNECTION WITH THE CASE Steve Brown, Director of Legal Services Breah Morrison, Litigation Specialist Jimmy Cox, Commercial Manager DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER WITH DISCLOSURES — PAGE 2 Michael Robinson, Residential Manager Robert Evans, Business Personal Property Manager Shane Docherty, Appraisal Manager Members of the Dallas County Appraisal Review Board who heard and determined Plaintiff(s’) protest Dallas Central Appraisal District 2949 North Stemmons Freeway Dallas, Texas 75247 (214) 631-0520 Mr. Brown is the Director of Legal Services and has knowledge of the appraisal methodology used to value the subject property in this matter. Breah Morrison is a Litigation Specialist and has knowledge of the appraisal methodology used to value the subject property in this matter. Jimmy Cox is the Commercial Property Manager and Shane Docherty is the Manager of Appraisal whose departments appraised the subject property. Robert Evans is the Business Personal Property Manager and has knowledge of the appraisal methodology used to value the subject property in this matter. Michael Robinson is the Manager of Residential Appraisal and has knowledge of the appraisal methodology used to value the subject property in this matter. These persons reviewed the information utilized by the Dallas Central Appraisal District to appraise the subject property for the tax year at issue. In addition, members of the Appraisal Review Board who heard the protest may have knowledge of the hearing and their decision in that matter. Further, Plaintiff(s) and its/their representatives also may have relevant knowledge. Defendant further discloses, designates, adopts and incorporates by reference any person or persons having knowledge of relevant facts subsequently designated or disclosed by any party herein. 6. A COPY — OR A DESCRIPTION BY CATEGORY AND LOCATION — OF ALL DOCUMENTS, ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION, AND TANGIBLE THINGS THAT THE RESPONDING PARTY HAS IN ITS POSSESSION, CUSTODY, OR CONTROL, AND MAY USE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIMS OR DEFENSES, UNLESS THE USE WOULD BE SOLELY FOR IMPEACHMENT None at this time. Defendant will supplement when an expert report is prepared. 7. ANY INDEMNITY AND INSURING AGREEMENTS DESCRIBED IN RULE 192.3(1) None. 8. ANY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS DESCRIBED IN RULE 192.3(g) None. DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER WITH DISCLOSURES — PAGE 3 9. ANY WITNESS STATEMENTS DESCRIBED IN RULE 192.3(h) None, other than the statements made at the Appraisal Review Board Hearing, if any. The recording of said hearing will be made available for Plaintiff(s)’ review at the Appraisal District upon reasonable notice. 10. IN A SUIT ALLEGING PHYSICAL OR MENTAL INJURY AND DAMAGES FROM THE OCCURRENCE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE CASE, ALL MEDICAL RECORDS AND BILLS THAT ARE REASONABLY RELATED TO THE INJURIES OR DAMAGES ASSERTED OR, IN LIEU THEREOF, AN AUTHORIZATION PERMITTIN G THE DISCLOSURE OF SUCH MEDICAL RECORDS AND BILLS Not applicable. 11. IN A SUIT ALLEGING PHYSICAL 0R MENTAL INJURY AND DAMAGES FROM THE OCCURRENCE THAT IS THE SUBJECT 0F THE CASE, ALL MEDICAL RECORDS AND BILLS OBTAINED BY THE RESPONDING PARTY BY VIRTUE OF AN AUTHORIZATION FURNISHED BY THE REQUESTING PARTY Not applicable. 12. THE NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF ANY PERSON WHO MAY BE DESIGNATED AS A RESPONSIBLE THIRD PARTY None. DEFENDANT’s ORIGINAL ANSWER WITH DISCLOSURES — PAGE 4 Respectfully submitted, NICHOLS, JACKSON, DILLARD, HAGER & SMITH, L.L.P. By: /s/ Braden W. Metcalf Peter G. Smith Bar Card No. 18664300 psmith@njdhs.com Braden W. Metcalf Bar Card No. 24055969 bmetcalf@njdhs.com 500 N. Akard, Suite 1800 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 965-9900 (214) 965-0010 FAX ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on October 14, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on Plaintiff(s’) attorney of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Via electronic service. /s/ Braden W. Metcalf Braden W. Metcalf DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER WITH DISCLOSURES — PAGE 5 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Kristi Love on behalf of Braden Metcalf Bar No. 24055969 klove@njdhs.com Envelope ID: 69256976 Status as of 10/17/2022 11:10 AM CST Associated Case Party: UW HOSPITALITY INC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status ESERVE FRAZIERLAW ESERVICE@FRAZIERLAWPLLC.COM 10/14/2022 8:59:23 PM SENT