A Dallas homeowner who is contractually prohibited from selling her Habitat for Humanity home for more than $160,000 was twice taxed based on appraisals valuing the house at nearly double that cap.
Haynes Boone lawyers handling the matter pro bono recently secured an agreed judgment requiring the Dallas Central Appraisal District to recognize the home’s deed restriction when determining its taxable value, ending a dispute the attorneys say threatened to undermine the purpose of affordable home ownership programs.
The July 15 judgment establishes Tracy Forbs Seymoore’s home market value at $160,000 for the 2025 and 2026 tax years — the final years her Habitat for Humanity deed restriction remains in effect.
“The result ensures that Ms. Seymoore is not penalized by excessive appraisals that undermine the very affordable housing programs designed to help,” said firm partner Deborah Coldwell, who supervised associates Sam Mallick, Austria Arnold Gerhardy and Mishan Kara.
Gerhardy, a third-year mergers and acquisitions associate, said she became “deadset” on helping Seymoore after they talked.
Seymoore, a first-time home buyer, had put in her own sweat equity helping build her three-bedroom two-bath home. Owning her home has changed Seymoore’s life and career for the better, Gerhardy said.
“Her career has just taken off since getting this Habitat home. She’s active in her community. She’s somebody who goes out of her way to help other people,” Gerhardy said.
For Gerhardy, whose practice focuses on mergers and acquisitions, the case was like “night and day” from her usual work. A partner who initially learned of the case advised Gerhardy to bring in a litigator. “I think that was good advice,” Gerhardy said.
Gerhardy reached out to Mallick, and later Kara joined the team and authored the summary judgment brief. The case settled during the summary judgment hearing.
Although the building blocks of the case were similar to Mallick and Kara’s day-to-day litigation practices, representing an individual homeowner rather than a corporate client gave the case a different significance.
“Even if we did a tax protest case, it would usually be a commercial tax case, and that’s really important for our clients, and it’s really important that we do a good job for them. But this is somebody’s home, and that just changes the stakes a little bit, and it makes it feel more personal,” Mallick said.
The implications also extend beyond the few hundred dollars at issue in the immediate tax dispute. Because property appraisals can increase by as much as 10 percent each year, a higher valuation could compound over time.
“By getting a good result for Tracy for 2025 and 2026, we’re also helping her for 2027 and into the future to make sure she’s not priced out of her house,” Mallick said.
The attorneys believe Seymoore is not alone. Other Habitat homeowners face similar deed restrictions while continuing to receive appraisals that do not account for those limits, they said. Because the dispute ended in a settlement rather than a judicial ruling, however, the case does not establish binding precedent.
“We believe the law is pretty clear on this point, and that we shouldn’t need the court to clarify it,” Mallick said.
The team is exploring ways to help additional homeowners facing similar situations.
For the associates, the case also demonstrated why pro bono matters often provide some of the earliest opportunities to lead significant work.
“Pro bono cases like this allow us to get involved early and hopefully make change now that will benefit Tracy’s life for the next 10 years, and also potentially benefit the lives of other Habitat homeowners,” Gerhardy said, “That’s important for us both from a training perspective, but also from the perspective of our law degree has power and influence now, and how can we put it to good use, even as associates within the first few years of practice?”