Texas Tax Code §42.29 allows qualifying property owners who prevail in certain judicial property-tax appeals to recover reasonable attorney fees. The statute says a prevailing owner “may be awarded” fees, which has led Texas appellate courts to address whether a trial judge can deny fees entirely or whether a qualifying prevailing owner is entitled to an award.
In the excessive-appraisal cases discussed below, Texas appellate courts in San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas interpreted Tax Code §42.29 as requiring an award of reasonable attorney fees when the property owner prevails, requests fees, and proves a reasonable amount, subject to the statute's limits. That does not mean every property-tax lawsuit automatically produces a fee award, and the amount recoverable remains subject to proof and statutory caps.
Section 42.29 is the Texas Property Tax Code provision that authorizes attorney-fee awards to qualifying property owners who prevail in certain judicial appeals. The current statute includes court appeals under Sections 42.25 and 42.26, certain appeals involving appraisal-roll correction motions under Section 25.25, and appeals involving the denial of specified exemptions.
| Issue | How §42.29 Applies |
|---|---|
| Excessive appraisal | Judicial appeals under Texas Tax Code §42.25 are expressly covered. |
| Unequal appraisal | Judicial appeals under Texas Tax Code §42.26 are expressly covered. |
| Appraisal-roll corrections | Certain court appeals from ARB determinations on §25.25 motions are included. |
| Specified exemption denials | The statute also identifies certain exemption-denial appeals. |
| Fee standard | The statute authorizes reasonable attorney fees, subject to statutory limits. |
Important: the three appellate decisions summarized below arose from excessive-appraisal disputes. Section 42.29 itself is broader, but the mandatory-award holdings should not be described as if each case decided every category now listed in the statute.
The key distinction is between entitlement to an award and the amount of the award. In the covered excessive-appraisal cases, the appellate courts concluded that a trial court could not simply deny attorney fees to a prevailing property owner who properly requested and proved reasonable fees.
That does not mean the court must award whatever amount the property owner asks for. The fees must still be supported by evidence, must be reasonable, and must fit within the statutory limits in Section 42.29.
In practical terms: the cited cases treat the qualifying fee award as mandatory, but the amount is not automatic.
Zapata County Appraisal District v. Coastal Oil & Gas Corp., 90 S.W.3d 847 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002), involved an excessive-appraisal appeal in which the property owner prevailed but was denied attorney fees.
The San Antonio Court of Appeals held that Section 42.29 required an attorney-fee award once the prevailing property owner established its entitlement and reasonable fees. The court reversed the denial and remanded for determination of the amount.
Aaron Rents, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District, 212 S.W.3d 665 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006), addressed the same question in an excessive-appraisal dispute.
The Austin Court of Appeals held that, upon request by a prevailing party under Section 42.25, an award of reasonable attorney fees was mandatory under Section 42.29.
Martinez v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, No. 05-09-00858-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 22, 2011), considered whether a trial court could deny fees after the property owner prevailed on an excessive-appraisal issue.
The Dallas Court of Appeals adopted the reasoning of Zapata and Aaron Rents. Because Martinez proved reasonable attorney fees, the court held that he was entitled to recover them, subject to Section 42.29's statutory limitations.
Yes. Earlier appellate opinions used discretionary language when discussing Section 42.29. Two Tex-Air Helicopters decisions are examples. But those courts did not squarely decide the fee-entitlement question because Section 42.29 did not control the result before them.
The Dallas Court of Appeals expressly acknowledged that history in Martinez and concluded that the courts that actually decided the entitlement question had treated the award as mandatory in the excessive-appraisal context.
Correction to the older article: it is too broad to say that “no case has held the fees discretionary.” A more accurate statement is that earlier opinions used discretionary language, while the appellate courts that squarely decided the entitlement issue in the cases above held the award mandatory.
Section 42.29 uses two layers of statutory limits. Under subsection (a), an award may not exceed the greater of $15,000 or 20% of the total amount by which the owner's tax liability is reduced. Subsection (b) then provides that the award may not exceed the lesser of $100,000 or the total tax-liability reduction.
| Illustrative Tax-Liability Reduction | 20% of Reduction | Illustrative Maximum Under the Statutory Caps |
|---|---|---|
| $10,000 | $2,000 | Up to $10,000 because subsection (b) prevents the award from exceeding the total tax-liability reduction. |
| $50,000 | $10,000 | Up to $15,000, subject to proof that the fees are reasonable. |
| $200,000 | $40,000 | Up to $40,000, subject to proof of reasonable fees. |
| $1,000,000 | $200,000 | The $100,000 ceiling in subsection (b) limits the potential award. |
These examples explain the statutory ceilings only. They do not mean a court will award the maximum in a particular case. The property owner still needs evidence supporting the amount claimed as reasonable attorney fees.
No. The current statute expressly includes both excessive-appraisal appeals under Section 42.25 and unequal-appraisal appeals under Section 42.26. It also lists certain Section 25.25 appraisal-roll correction appeals and specified exemption-denial appeals.
However, the specific mandatory-award decisions summarized above arose in excessive-appraisal cases. That distinction should be preserved when applying those holdings to other types of property-tax appeals.
For more background, see our guides to unequal appraisal in Texas, Texas property tax appeals, and property tax lawsuits in Texas.
No. Potential recovery under Section 42.29 can be an important factor when evaluating a judicial property-tax appeal, but it should not be treated as a guarantee that litigation will be cost-free.
A property owner should also consider the amount of tax in dispute, the strength of the evidence, litigation expenses, timing, settlement opportunities, the statutory requirements for preserving an appeal, and the possibility that the owner may not prevail.
In the excessive-appraisal cases discussed here, Texas appellate courts held that a qualifying prevailing owner who requested and proved reasonable attorney fees was entitled to an award under Section 42.29, subject to statutory limits. Not every property-tax lawsuit qualifies.
The current statute covers appeals under Sections 42.25 and 42.26, certain appeals involving Section 25.25 appraisal-roll corrections, and appeals involving the denial of specified exemptions.
The amount is subject to the limits in Section 42.29. Subsection (a) uses the greater of $15,000 or 20% of the tax-liability reduction, while subsection (b) prevents the award from exceeding the lesser of $100,000 or the total tax-liability reduction. The requested fees must also be reasonable and supported by evidence.
No. The cases distinguish entitlement to an award from the amount awarded. The fees must be reasonable, proven, and within the statutory caps.
Section 42.29 expressly includes appeals under Section 42.26. The mandatory-award appellate cases summarized in this article, however, arose in excessive-appraisal disputes.
Yes. Earlier opinions used discretionary language, but those courts did not squarely decide the entitlement question. Later appellate courts that directly decided the issue in the cited excessive-appraisal cases held the award was mandatory.
PropertyTaxes.Law helps property owners evaluate appraisal disputes, judicial appeal requirements, litigation strategy, and potential remedies under the Texas Property Tax Code.
Discuss Your Property Tax AppealThis article provides general educational information and is not legal advice. Attorney-fee entitlement depends on the claims, procedural posture, judgment, evidence, applicable law, and other facts of the case. Texas statutes and case law can change. Consult qualified counsel regarding a specific property-tax dispute.
Brandon and his team have proven they can perform with any product type we give them,
from industrial and office property to single and multi-family residential.
At a critical time when a property was in lease-up, we were faced with an unreasonable and unjustified assessment.
Brandon’s tenacity and responsiveness resulted in a fair assessment and the largest value change I've seen in my career.
Outstanding!! These guys are pros - they are great at what they do and great to work with.