CAUSE NO.
18-6796-393
JOHN T. THORNGREN
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
V.
OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
DENTON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT §
393RD JUDICIAL DIS5RICTal, r-71
ce,
C.)
C
D
.:
0
-TI
0
-•
--i
z rri
r:f ;-.
—0
,--,
rr, v
=
--.
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED RE-PLEAD PETITION FOR STATUTORY' tisf7)Tv..
W
X
Cr%
>
Le.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:
Pursuant to the Court ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SPECIAL EXCEPTION
(IN PART) of September 26, 2018, Plaintiff hereby amends Sections 5.1 and 6.1 in
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATION of
September 11, 2018 with additions 5.2-8 and 6.2-7, and states compliance with Texas Property
Tax Code 42.01 (1) (A) and 42.21 (a) and 42.22
(a) in this re-plead. Plaintiff further stipulates
that there are no other changes being made to said Plaintiff s First Amended Petition, and all
Facts and Fact numbers 4.1-16 refer to said Petition.
V. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
5.1 Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant has responded to his Request for Disclosure in
Plaintiff's First Amended Petition as DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE of October 29, 2018 and said disclosure refers Plaintiff to
rummage through the DCAD files but has not properly responded to Plaintiff's specific Request
for Disclosure as noted in Texas Rules for Civil Procedure, 194.2(c), regarding the legal
theories and, in general, the factual basis of the responding party's claims or defenses
concerning Facts 4.1-16. Bases for these Facts were made available to the Defendant on
September 28, 2018 per Defendant's REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE of September 4, 2018 via
e-mail and certified mail in the form of Exhibits 1-16 corresponding to the Facts 1-16.
5.2. Pursuant to Rule 194.1, Plaintiff now seeks Specific Disclosure under 194.2(c) as to
legal theories, factual basis, extralegal reasons, how and why five residential homes and one
commercial property owned by a trust, and family members thereof, on North Shady Shores
Drive receive $ 1.00/ft2, on a mixed use, busy street, unchanging since 2014, whereas Plaintiff
on a quite street is at $ 3.00/ft2.
5.3 Pursuant to Rule 194.1, Plaintiff now seeks Specific Disclosure under 194.2(c) as to
legal theories, factual basis, extralegal reasons, how and why the property directly across the
street from his property receives $ 1.80/ft2 with a remodeled rent home appraised at $ 306, said
home being in the $ 340 range since 2016 and Plaintiff's property is appraised at
$ 3.00/ft2.
5.4 Plaintiff further seeks a separate rule of discovery as to an Admission pursuant to
1 98. 1 regarding the other party to admit the truth of any matter within the scope of
discovery for 5.2.
5.5 Plaintiff further seeks a separate rule of discovery as to an Admission pursuant to
198.1 regarding the other party to admit the truth of any matter within the scope of
discovery for 5.3.
5.6 Plaintiff further seeks a separate rule of discovery as to an Admission pursuant to
198.2
(c) regarding a response must fairly meet the substance of the request for 5.2
5.7 Plaintiff further seeks a separate rule of discovery as to an Admission pursuant to
198.2
(c) regarding a response must fairly meet the substance of the request for 5.3
2
5.8
Plaintiff can not consider a settlement until the disclosures in 5.2 and 5.3 have been
received, with said disclosures due no later than 50 days after service of this request according to
Rule 194.3 (a) and/or Rule 198.2 (a) and shall be transmitted to the Plaintiff as noted below.
VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
6.1 Plaintiff seeks statutory relief under Texas Tax Code, Section 42.24 (1), ACTION
BY THE COURT to fix the appraised value of property in accordance with the
requirements of law ... per Remedies noted in Section 42.25 REMEDY FOR EXCESSIVE
APPRAISAL and Section 42.26 REMEDY FOR UNEQUAL APPRAISAL.
6.2 EXCESSIVE APPRAISAL 42.25 is noted per violation of Texas Tax code, Sec
23.01
(d) against Plaintiffs property: The market value of a residence homestead shall be
determined solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead, regardless of
whether the residential use of the property by the owner is considered to be the highest and
best use of the property, emphasis in bold, as evidenced by Facts 4.2. 4.9. and 4.12.
6.3 EXCESSIVE APPRAISAL 42.25 is noted per violation of Texas Tax code, Sec
23.013 (d) against Plaintiff's property: Whether a property is comparable to the subject property
shall be determined based on similarities with regard to location, square footage of the lot and
improvements, property age, property condition, property access, amenities, views, income,
operating expenses, occupancy, and the existence of easements, deed restrictions, or other legal
burdens affecting marketability, emphasis in bold, as evidenced by Fact 4.13.
6.4 UNEQUAL APPRAISAL 42.26 is noted per violation of Texas Tax Code 23.013 (d)
against Plaintiff's property: Whether a property is comparable to the subject property shall be
3
less than the median appraised value of a reasonable number of comparable properties
appropriately adjusted. Plaintiff, who is published in Probability and Statistics, has evidenced
in Fact 4.16 that the statistical methods used by Defendant are tantamount to a coin toss, do not
produce a credible opinion, and the selection of comparable properties and the application of
appropriate adjustments are so poor as to provide a ratio of predicted sales price for vacant
land to the actual to lie between 3.7 and 0.09 by Defendant's own admission (Fact 4.16). Plaintiff
also shows in 4.16 that Defendant doctors their statistics after the fact using the actual sales
price, or near the actual, in their predicted ratio to bring their Median Ratio into the 1.00 range.
REPRESENTATION FOR THE PLAINTIF
- PRO SE
PLAINTIFF
JOHN T. THORNGREN
MAIL: P.O. Box 718
Lake Dallas, Texas
75065
Tel:
940-497-0133
E-Mail: TEXANDcorp@Charter.net
5