Res 029-96 3/5/1996RESOLUTION NO. 'a(-11 X
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REFUND OF MONIES TO
DANA CORPORATION LITIGATION FOR SETTLEMENT IN A
LAWSUIT .
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WICHITA FALLS , TEXAS . THAT:
It is found that a judgement reduced the appraised
value at 2800 Fisher Road, account #0956-010-0000 of
1 , 774, 546 . The total of all tax entities was $55 , 591 . 28
and the City ' s share is $16 ,078 . 32 .
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 5TH- D , OF MARC 9 . .
M A Y O R/
OF' Ail
L ee,
410011111.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
WICHITA APPRAISAL DISTRICT
Wm
P.O. Box 5172 • 600 SCOTT STREET • WICHITA FALLS,TEXAS 76307
PHONE:(817)322-2435
EQUALIZATION'
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE February 9, 1996
TO James Berzina, Wichita Falls City Manager
Les Carnine, Superintendent, Wichita Falls I .S.D.
Nick Gipson, Wichita County Judge
FROM Lanier Wilson
SUBJECT Dana Corporation Litigation
I informed you in December that we had litigated the 1992, 1993, 1994 and
1995 value of property belonging to Dana Corporation. I also advised that
a judgment would be forthcoming (see enclosed memo).
Judge Driver has issued the court's judgment as of February 7, 1996.
Enclosed is a copy of that judgment. Also enclosed is the refund schedule
for each taxing entity.
The major difference in what I mailed you in December and now is that the
1995 refund is also included. It was anticipated that the judgment would
have been received in January and 1995 value would be adjusted and not
refunded.
I need to point out that the refund for each year is subject to interest
based on 13 week T-bill rates. We have computed the amount of refund
based on payment being made by March 1st. If payment is not made prior to
this date additional interest will be due. Please make refund checks
payable to: Geary, Porter & Donovan PC, One Bent Tree Tower, 16475
Dallas Pkwy, Ste 550, Dallas, TX 75248.
I an sorry that we were not as successful as we would have liked to have
been in court. If you have questions or comments, please give me a call .
anier Wilson
CC: Monette Pemberton
M A
H
1 Z H
AA hfAp
yy r
0
4 I.. K M r 'summa K H t• 1r0
K M t" WW'O N H
N y
N
UTAtaP y N UTAwP y g UTAWN x p
0
p
0 H 0 p M
y
K R J1 H 4 A-
1
to Q p p
M 2
momm NOO p $
wwww NOO KH01
MN
2
00MM MA
MN H WWWW MN M WWWW MN
A
2 A N''° M AAAA N 01010 V'° 2 °010101 N
yr H AAAA Z H AAAA X
HH QO H H a MMM H H WCOMM H COMMM H
4
i
p
0 X 0000 HHHO H
I
M
0000
yH
m H ww0' pp
A .4'4'4'4 HNCwwww
J0WM H
M 1010WN N H C11NWW NMpyq010A0N
p WW00 H J$.+0%0%
A 0000 0000 K UIU100
A NNNH •,0 JJJN I wwww
4 N ONNO C
AAr10 Z 100101 x••
W N p•
N
p
AJJ'0 O'O01UI AtJi-1w
0 r M Mo AA OO
H I„I H
H X Z N
N
yH y gH t
M
AUIWN HN AUIWN yywo owl '.3
1O WC JJUIIO M JJUI10 M CA
4 y w1O1OJ H W'O10J H W''.4 H
y
H
C
yN 0 0000 0000 0000
p p o p p
N M ;
H
N000 70r NtT10C1 WO
rr00 H
MK
HHOM H
C W N
1
MWW
HK
tUi10MWW UN IIjl00%'. Ud •
OK
UI O1 W w tat
0 W
H
00%
C1 HI
1000110 2 OHHCA H OHSS-•
CA Ht7
A H AAC%01
H
AAO%01 AA0101
Z
a
H
N
r
a a a
N t,uJr
H NIOUIN K NIWOUIN K
NNNIOUIN K
CA 00 M OA'OA M
A CA DA OA fA
M
H
cm N
H
A ',OH OH Awl.)
cm
H NNw OH
NU.J
KW
W
MI-AWN
KW
A0 WJ KWKWNNyWA
N
rW
N
rW
I
0 7DH OHWO 7OH
oH00%
CA MH AWIIIUi1 MH
W 1 aq m
v1 c c N C r
CUIUIUINCONNNNNUIJ0JNX01WA0A
HH5ONN0
J 0O00.40
p
VI
0 O00H
10 0 0 + N rUIJA + CO JNJF+ + J NNW& +
M 0 10 N ONMN H JOMM-• 0 0%UIOW
H
H
r WJAW N W MWH10 Z
W 0 CJ1 H o
H0W%
CCAU'. H 0 HU1O%W H N WU10%A H
R'
NO. 139,9601E8 F R
AT_.,dole*M
IN THEsTRICT COURT
DANA CORPORATION,
FEB 0/ 1996
Plaintiff,
DOPaff R. ter, OW OA
V.
Caaw acuaallacelt TNTY, TEXAS
Weft Cow*
WICHITA APPRAISAL DISTRICT,
Defendant.
89TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
On the 4th day of December, 1995, came on to be heard the
above-styled and numbered cause. Dana Corporation, the Plaintiff,
appeared in person and by attorney of record and announced ready
for trial, and Wichita Appraisal District, the Defendant, appeared
in person and by attorney of record and announced ready for trial.
A jury having been previously demanded, a jury consisting of twelve
12) qualified jurors was duly empaneled and the case proceeded to
trial.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the Court submitted the
questions of fact in the case to the Jury. The charge of the Court
and the verdict of the Jury are incorporated for all purposes by
reference. Because it appears to the Court that the verdict of the
Jury was for the Plaintiff and against the Defendant on the issues
of fair market value and attorneys' fees at trial, Judgment should
be rendered on the verdict in favor of the Plaintiff and against
the Defendant on these issues.
After the Jury returned its verdict, Plaintiff moved for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of attorneys'
fees on appeal . Because it appears to the Court that there is no
evidence of probative force, or alternatively no evidence, to
JUDGMENT -- Page 1 1:\CLIENT-D\7446\28440\JWGMENT
f
sustain the verdict of the Jury on the issue of app ellate
attorneys' fees, and that a directed verdict in favor of Plaintiff
would have been proper, judgment notwithstanding the verdict should
be rendered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on this
issue.
The Court, after hearing the evidence and argument of counsel,
is of the opinion that the Plaintiff is entitled to an order of the
Court ordering a reduction in the appraised value of the
Plaintiff' s property, represented by Wichita Appraisal District
Account Numbers 0956-010-0000 for tax years 1992 through 1995 to
1, 774, 546.00, and that Plaintiff should recover its reasonable and
necessary attorneys' fees as set forth below.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the appraisal rolls of the
Defendant be modified and corrected to reflect a market value for
the above account number comprising Plaintiff's property of
1, 774, 546 .00 on January 1, 1992, January 1, 1993, January 1, 1994
and January 1, 1995.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant shall forthwith
advise the Assessor for each affected taxing unit to (1) change the
tax roll and other appropriate records to reflect the appraised
value as set forth above; (2) prepare and deliver a supplemental
tax bill as required by Chapter 31 and Chapter 42, subchapter C of
the Texas Property Tax Code; and (3) promptly make any necessary
tax refunds for the above-referenced property pursuant to Texas
Property Tax Code Section 42 .43 .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff recover from Defendant
its reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees in the sum of
Page 2 1:\CLIENT-D\7446\28440\JWGNENT
10, 000 .00 for services rendered through the trial of this case,
for which let execution issue.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of Plaintiff for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict is granted, the verdict of the
Jury regarding attorneys' fees on appeal is vacated and set aside,
and Plaintiff may recover its reasonable and necessary attorneys'
fees in the event it successfully defends an appeal of this
Judgment by Defendant of $5, 000.00 for defense of an appeal to the
Court of Appeals, $3, 500 .00 for response to an application for writ
of error and $2, 500.00 for defense of an appeal to the Supreme
Court should such application be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs of court expended or
incurred in this cause are adjudged against Defendant, for which
let execution issue.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all attorneys' fees and costs of
court due under this Judgment shall include post judgment interest
at the rate of 10% per annum, from the date of this Judgment until
paid, for which let execution issue.
All other relief not expressly granted in this judgment is
denied.
SIGNED this 11; day of l'el," 4, 1995.
JUDGE • - SIDING
JUDGMENT -- Page 3
1:\CLIENT-D\7446\25440\JUDGMENT
AMOOMMIIMMIMMO