Texas Codes

Tex. Tax Code § 42.09 (2026)

Remedies Exclusive

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 42.09. REMEDIES EXCLUSIVE. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b) of this section, procedures prescribed by this title for adjudication of the grounds of protest authorized by this title are exclusive, and a property owner may not raise any of those grounds:

(1) in defense to a suit to enforce collection of delinquent taxes; or

(2) as a basis of a claim for relief in a suit by the property owner to arrest or prevent the tax collection process or to obtain a refund of taxes paid.

(b) A person against whom a suit to collect a delinquent property tax is filed may plead as an affirmative defense:

(1) if the suit is to enforce personal liability for the tax, that the defendant did not own the property on which the tax was imposed on January 1 of the year for which the tax was imposed; or

(2) if the suit is to foreclose a lien securing the payment of a tax on real property, that the property was not located within the boundaries of the taxing unit seeking to foreclose the lien on January 1 of the year for which the tax was imposed.

(c) For purposes of this section, "suit" includes a counterclaim, cross-claim, or other claim filed in the course of a lawsuit.

Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 2311, ch. 841, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1982. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 53, Sec. 1, eff. May 6, 1987.

SUBCHAPTER B. REVIEW BY DISTRICT COURT

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 125 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Morris, 355 S.W.3d 668 (Tex. App. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Morris, 355 S.W.3d 668 (Tex. App. 2011). · cites it 13× “Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.09 . To complain about ownership or any other matter adversely affecting the property or the taxpayer, the property owner is required to timely file a written protest with the appraisal review board within the applicable period of limitations.”

Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. 1615 Corp., 217 S.W.3d 631 (Tex. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.09 (Vernon 2001); Houston Indep.”

Barnett v. Cnty. of Dallas, 175 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “Discussion Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies The taxing authorities concede that section 42.09 of the property tax code allowed Appellant to raise non-ownership of the property as an affirmative defense in their suit to collect delinquent taxes even though Appellant did not…”

Rio Valley, LLC v. City of El Paso, El Paso Cent. Appraisal Dist. & Appraisal Review Bd. of El Paso Cnty., Texas, 441 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “” Tex.Tax Code Ann. § 42.09(a); Rourk, 194 S.”

Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. City of Corpus Christi, 850 S.W.2d 596 (Tex. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “TEX.TAX CODE ANN. § 42.09(b). Still, the taxing authorities had to prove that GECC was the secured party in possession in order *601 to show themselves entitled to judgment for the taxes on the units.”

First Bank of Deer Park v. Harris Cnty., 804 S.W.2d 588 (Tex. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 42.09 (Vernon Supp.1991).”

Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. ETC Mktg., LTD., 399 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “12 of the Texas Tax Code is properly raised through proceedings before the appraisal review board).”

Ned B. Morris III v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 388 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2012). · cites it 2× “Once the taxing entities received the payment, they non-suited their claims and the district court realigned the parties, designating the Taxpayers as plaintiffs. The taxing authorities filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that the district court lacked jurisdiction…”

City of El Paso v. Mountain Vista Builders, Inc., 557 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “TEX.TAX CODE ANN. § 42.09. We recently applied this jurisdictional bar against a taxpayer who did not timely appeal an adverse administrative determination of a tax protest, and later attempted to raise the same issue as a counterclaim and defense in a tax delinquency suit.”

Brennan v. City of Willow Park, 376 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “See Tex. Tax Code Ann. §§ 42.09 , 41.01-71 (West 2008) (outlining the administrative protest procedure available to a property owner to challenge valuation of his property by an appraisal district); see generally Webb Cnty.”

Cameron Appraisal Dist. v. Rourk, 194 S.W.3d 501 (Tex. 2006). “See TEX. TAX CODE § 42.09(b). The class here asserts neither.”

Atl. Shippers of Texas, Inc. v. Jefferson Cnty., 363 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 42.09 . However, the defenses Atlantic asserted to the County’s collection suit are not among the statutory defenses available to a taxpayer who failed to file timely protests.”

Show all 125 citing cases →

— Tex. Tax Code § 42.09(2) — 1 case

Liland v. Dallas Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 731 S.W.2d 109 (Tex. App. 1987).

— Tex. Tax Code § 42.09(a) — 23 cases

Rio Valley, LLC v. City of El Paso, El Paso Cent. Appraisal Dist. & Appraisal Review Bd. of El Paso Cnty., Texas, 441 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. App. 2014). “” Tex.Tax Code Ann. § 42.09(a); Rourk, 194 S.”

City of El Paso v. Mountain Vista Builders, Inc., 557 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. App. 2017). “TEX.TAX CODE ANN. § 42.09. We recently applied this jurisdictional bar against a taxpayer who did not timely appeal an adverse administrative determination of a tax protest, and later attempted to raise the same issue as a counterclaim and defense in a tax delinquency suit.”

Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. ETC Mktg., LTD., 399 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. App. 2013). “12 of the Texas Tax Code is properly raised through proceedings before the appraisal review board).”

Ned B. Morris III v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 388 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2012). “Once the taxing entities received the payment, they non-suited their claims and the district court realigned the parties, designating the Taxpayers as plaintiffs. The taxing authorities filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that the district court lacked jurisdiction…”

Vitol, Inc. v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 529 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. App. 2017).

— Tex. Tax Code § 42.09(a)(2) — 3 cases

Dallas Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Funds Recovery, Inc., 887 S.W.2d 465 (Tex. App. 1994).

First Bank of Deer Park v. Harris Cnty., 804 S.W.2d 588 (Tex. App. 1991). “TEX. TAX CODE ANN. § 42.09 (Vernon Supp.1991).”

Sonja Mullerin v. Albert Uresti, in His Off. Capacity as Bexar Cnty. Tax Assessor Collector (Tex. App. 2025).

— Tex. Tax Code § 42.09(b) — 7 cases

Cameron Appraisal Dist. v. Rourk, 194 S.W.3d 501 (Tex. 2006). “See TEX. TAX CODE § 42.09(b). The class here asserts neither.”

Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. City of Corpus Christi, 850 S.W.2d 596 (Tex. App. 1993). “TEX.TAX CODE ANN. § 42.09(b). Still, the taxing authorities had to prove that GECC was the secured party in possession in order *601 to show themselves entitled to judgment for the taxes on the units.”

Nw. Texas Conf. of the United Methodist Church v. Happy Indep. Sch. Dist., 839 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. App. 1992).

United Indep. Sch. Dist. v. U.S. Trailer Relocators, LLC (Tex. App. 2018).

Edward Jackson v. Harrison Cent. Appraisal Dist. (Tex. App. 2025).

— Tex. Tax Code § 42.09(b)(1) — 5 cases

Excel Auto & Truck Leasing, L.L.P. v. Alief Indep. Sch. Dist., 249 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. App. 2007).

United Indep. Sch. Dist. v. U.S. Trailer Relocators, LLC (Tex. App. 2018).

Paul Edward Hudson v. Dallas Cnty. (Tex. App. 2015).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.