Defeating the No-Evidence MSJ in Property Division: Lessons from Tax Valuation Appeals
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kennedy, 05-25-00107-CV, February 05, 2026.
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s grant of a no-evidence motion for summary judgment in a property valuation dispute, holding that a property owner’s submission of comparable sales and internal appraisal district offers constituted “more than a scintilla” of evidence. The court clarified that while the owner was not entitled to summary judgment in his own favor, the existence of conflicting valuation data was sufficient to necessitate a trial on the merits.
Relevance to Family Law
In Texas divorce litigation, the “just and right” division of the community estate frequently hinges on the valuation of real property. This decision provides a strategic roadmap for Family Law practitioners to defeat “no-evidence” summary judgment strikes aimed at excluding a client’s valuation claims. It reaffirms that the threshold for evidence to survive an MSJ is low—merely a “scintilla”—and suggests that even informal appraisal district offers and comparable data can serve as a shield to preserve a client’s right to a jury trial on property value.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The dispute centered on a vacant lot in Dallas County owned by Messele Kelel. The Dallas Central Appraisal District (DCAD) valued the property at $74,250 for the 2023 tax year. Kelel contested this valuation, first through the Appraisal Review Board (ARB) and subsequently through a lawsuit in the County Court at Law. Kelel argued the valuation was excessive and unequal, presenting evidence of six nearby properties valued significantly lower (between $20,000 and $44,000). During the course of the litigation and mediation, DCAD allegedly made various offers to reduce the valuation—first to approximately $49,000 and later as low as $30,000—though the parties could not reach a final settlement due to disagreements over court costs and mediation fees. DCAD eventually moved for a no-evidence summary judgment, asserting that Kelel had failed to provide any competent evidence that the district’s valuation was incorrect. The trial court granted DCAD’s motion, effectively dismissing Kelel’s claims.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the trial court erred in granting a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of DCAD when the property owner had produced evidence of comparable valuations and documented settlement offers from the appraisal district itself. A secondary issue involved whether the property owner was entitled to a cross-motion for summary judgment based on those same offers.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i), which governs no-evidence motions for summary judgment. Under this rule, a party may move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim. The burden then shifts to the nonmovant to produce more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The court also relied on the standard articulated in King Ranch v. Chapman, which defines “less than a scintilla” as evidence so weak that it does no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion of a fact. Finally, the court referenced the Texas Property Code provisions regarding excessive and unequal appraisal remedies.
Application
The court’s analysis focused on the “scintilla of evidence” standard. Justice Kennedy, writing for the court, navigated the procedural history where Kelel responded to the no-evidence motion by pointing to specific valuation data. Kelel’s evidence included the list of six comparable properties he had originally submitted to the ARB, as well as the 2024 valuation of the property and DCAD’s own internal offers to settle the 2023 valuation at $30,000.
The court reasoned that while these figures might not be enough to prove the valuation as a matter of law (which is why Kelel’s own motion for summary judgment was denied), they certainly constituted “more than a scintilla” of evidence. Fair-minded people could look at the $30,000 offer from DCAD and the lower-valued neighboring properties and reasonably conclude that the $74,250 valuation was incorrect. Therefore, the trial court erred by weighing the evidence or determining its ultimate credibility at the summary judgment stage rather than allowing the fact-finder to resolve the dispute.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s grant of the no-evidence summary judgment was improper. The court found that Kelel met his burden to produce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact regarding the Property’s valuation.
Furthermore, the court held that the trial court correctly denied Kelel’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Because the valuation of property is a fact-intensive inquiry, the existence of the $30,000 offer and the comparable data did not establish the value as a matter of law, but merely created a fact issue for trial. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Practical Application
For the Family Law litigator, this case is a reminder that defeating a no-evidence MSJ on property value does not require a $10,000 MAI appraisal at the summary judgment response stage. If you can point to tax records, previous offers to sell, or even the appraisal district’s internal adjustments, you have likely cleared the “scintilla” hurdle. This is particularly useful in “low-equity” cases or cases where the cost of an expert appraiser is prohibitive early in the litigation.
Checklists
Defeating the No-Evidence MSJ on Valuation
- Identify Comparable Data
- Collect at least 3-5 sales or valuations of similar properties in the immediate vicinity.
- Ensure the data is contemporaneous with the date of the community estate’s valuation.
- Leverage Appraisal District Records
- Review the “Notice of Appraised Value” for the years surrounding the filing.
- Document any successful ARB protests or “settlement” offers made by the district during the protest phase.
- The “Scintilla” Proffer
- Incorporate the Property Owner’s Opinion of Value (the “Property Owner Rule”).
- Attach exhibits showing any recent repairs, damage, or market conditions that contradict a high valuation.
- Frame the evidence not as a “final proof,” but as a “fact issue” that requires a trial.
Avoiding the Downside of Kelel’s Case
- Don’t Overreach on Cross-Motions
- Understand that evidence sufficient to defeat an MSJ is rarely sufficient to win an MSJ on valuation.
- Avoid the expense of a cross-motion unless the value is stipulated or liquidated.
- Preserve the Record
- Ensure all supplemental petitions (like Kelel’s 2024 valuation claims) are properly filed and served before the MSJ hearing.
- Object to hearings “by submission” if live testimony or oral argument is necessary to explain the nuances of the valuation evidence.
Citation
Messele Kelel v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, No. 05-25-00107-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 5, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be weaponized in a Texas divorce case where one spouse attempts to use a No-Evidence MSJ to “lock in” a favorable valuation or eliminate a claim for reimbursement. In many divorces, a spouse may not have a formal appraisal ready 90 days after the answer is filed. This case confirms that practitioners can use “scintilla” evidence—such as tax appraisals, informal market analyses from realtors, or even the other spouse’s previous admissions during mediation or settlement discussions (if they fall under the valuation exception)—to keep the claim alive. It prevents a “valuation ambush” where a wealthier spouse tries to use the cost of experts as a barrier to entry for the other spouse’s property claims.
~~6454bd41-3e8d-40dc-b0ec-f0498cfe23ec~~
Share this content:
