October 26, 2024, received MCAD 2024 tax bill. Mailed a check for the entire amount the same day and it cleared my bank a few days later. The last property listed was Erwin-Murray 45C.
Today, February 25, 2025, I received a tax bill from MCAD for 2024 taxes on Erwin-Murray 45C. Even worse, the bill assesses a late fee for January and arrived so late it would be impossible to get payment to them before a
February late fee is assessed.
How is this any different than purchasing a house and the seller is paid in full at time of closing and then receiving a notice after you have moved in that you must attend another closing because the seller has changed the price?
How is this any different than making a credit card purchase for the entire amount of an item and then getting a credit card statement showing the full purchase on the appropriate date and then an additional charge (stemming from same transaction) posted a few weeks later?
How is this not outright fraud?
Are others out there receiving similar fraudulent re-billings or am I being singled out because I am an out-of-state owner?
Who do I contact to put an end to what I consider utter stupidity?
@min4me, I have had this happen before.
Sometimes operators submit adjusted data, especially on newer wells, and the district sends out a supplemental billing. Sometimes
it is just a mistake. I am also out of state
but truthfully can say I have always received
the clearest, most competent and courteous
service from the Texas County clerks
and tax districts.
First, have you called or emailed the Tax Office with this problem? I deal in multiple counties in TX and find almost all of the offices helpful and professional when presented with issues. Do they make mistakes, of course and they work hard to get them fixed. There are times you have to go back to the CAD get issues resolved. Just be patient, work diligently, document your comms, and you should stop referering to this as fraud.
My understanding of the required procedures with regards to mineral rights taxes are:
Pritchard and Abbott gathers information from producers and assesses value of holdings.
MCAD submits appraisal to owner, followed by a protest period .
MCAD submits tax bill.
Owner pays bill.
If the owner pays the entire bill in full and the taxes are based on the value listed on the appraisal, why would this not constitute a legal end to the transaction?
If a supplemental tax bill is presented based on a higher value than shown on the appraisal, why would this not be a violation of the the required procedures, as it bypasses a new appraisal and protest period?
I have reached out to MCAD and the person I talked to shuffled me off to P&A who have not returned my call.
Finally was able to speak with P&A this morning. It seems they have been contacted by multiple parties with problems with supplemental bills. They are aware of the problem and are working on it - seems to be related to corrections from last November being included in a monthly data download.
Interestingly, as a byproduct of that conversation, I have learned that my decimal interest on a number of wells should be 50% higher because the producer is still carrying on their books the party that I inherited from. This is particularly interesting because they were notified of the death of that person over 2 years ago when I sought to be added to their pay list and no money has been escheated to the unclaimed property fund in that time for that person.
You should not rely on Tax statements to provide accurate DOI. Once you have the DO, you can forward that to P&A. And request an adjustment. If the Operator is not updating P&A, then they cannot make changes.
I don’t understand why you think I am relying on tax statements for my DOI and do not have DOs. I have had the DOs for almost 2 years. They have always seemed a bit “off” and I have been working to gather information to address the issue.
When I received the supplemental tax bill, it was obvious they were billing me for something I had already paid taxes on and were not following protocol - in other words, I had not received a different appraisal, had time to protest, if desired, and been allowed to pay before assessment of late penalties.
Perhaps a bit more explanation will help. I first contacted the producer over 2 years ago to inquire if they had a distant relative on their pay list and to find out how to transfer that ownership to myself (and sister-in-law). The holdings that I was entitled to were in the name of Blanche Marie Margro. Blanche had (long after acquisition) married my father-in-law following his divorce. He died about a year after the marriage and then several years later, Blanche married again and became Blanche Marie Sylvest. Her will left all unnamed property to my wife (who died 2 years after Blanche) and my sister-in-law.
Prior to my contacting the producer, they had no knowledge of the name change to Blanche Sylvest. They had been escheating funds to TUP for Margro until I contacted them. At that time, the name should have gone off their books and my SIL and I should have each gone on with 1/2 of the interest. What I was just told by P&A is that the information provided to them by the producer is still showing interest in the names of myself, my SIL, and Blanche Sylvest. In order for the books to balance, they believe that the Sylvest entry has to be deleted and 1/2 of it go to my SIL and 1/2 to me.
The supplemental bill I received raises my interest form the .000025 I had been receiving to .000037.
I do not understand all the details of what change was entered on the books and by whom that triggered this erroneous supplemental bill, but I do understand that other changes were also mishandled and the upside of this snafu is that I have some very strong evidence that my current DO is in error and I have been underpaid.
A check of the TUP shows no funds escheated to them during the last 2 years in either the name of Blanche Margro or Blanche Sylvest. Based on the income I received on this one well, there should have been funds escheated.
You are going through the initial phase of a correction process. Ultimately, it is the duty of the mineral owner to prove their basis in title. P&A can only work with the information provided. If your claim conflicts with the Operator provided DOI, then P&A will most likely ask you to go to the operator to resolve the issue before it is corrected.
When you deal with the Operator or Purchaser, they may be working off a paydeck with very little backup information. A simple challenge that the initial interest is not correct or was distributed incorrectly will most likely lead to a more indepth challenge. The Operator/Purchaser should be able to provide a distribution detail as to lyour interest so you can track UCP transfers.
Operator’s are not required to furnish updated DOs to the county or their vendor (P&A, etc). So provide annual updates, and some rarely provide an update once over several years.
So it’s not surprising your decimal interest was wrong. Since the person you received your minerals from was also on the tax roll, have you verified if the taxes were paid on their accounts? You may want to discuss that with P&A if they are delinquent and owe back taxes. Often you can get them to transfer it back to the year you actually acquired them to eliminate the penalties and interest and get “new” bills in your name for the prior years.
Minerals are different than buying a house. Minerals are not insured by title companies, and the vast majority of transactions do not have the property taxes pro-rated at closing. I’ve had ownership transfers take three years to finally be updated with the county appraiser and tax offices.
Based on what I have been told by P&A, they had discovered that the producer was carrying the deceased person whom I inherited from on their books in addition to the other heir and myself. They have been working to correct the producers books to delete the deceased person and allocate their percentage to the heirs, raising our interests by about 50% on the tax rolls. However, the producer has not changed their pay books to match the tax books, despite being notified of the issue last June by myself.
When trying to contact MCAD about the issue, for most of a week, phone calls were answered with a message that they were not currently accepting calls. When I finally got through, the person I spoke with said there was only one person, Lisa Rainer, that could address the issue and she was no longer with MCAD and then hung up.
I, too, have spoken with many very nice people who have been quite helpful, but my recent experience does not meet that standard.