Th e ta xingun its we re Tr avis County , L a g o V ist a Ind e pe nd e nt S c ho ol D ist ri c t, C ounty 1 Ed uc a tio n D istri c t, T ra

vis County

Em e rg e nc y

Se rv ic e s D istri c t No
. 1, and Tr avis County F arm to Marke t Road and Water Control I mprovement District-Point Venture
. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 703 -CV

Jus ti n Be lt , A ppe lla nt

v. P oint Venture P ropert y Ow ners’ Assoc iation, In c., Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GV-86- 4054 04 , HO NORAB LE JO HN K . DIETZ , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt Jus tin B e lt b ri ng s th is a

pp e a l pro se fr om a

n o rd e r t o disb ur se the e xce ss pr oc e e ds fr om a

ta x for e c los ur e sal e of

pr op e rt y to a pp e lle e Poi nt V e ntu

re Pr op e rt

y Owne rs ’ Association, Inc. (“ PVPOA”). SeeTex. Tax Code Ann. § 34.04 (West 2008)
. For the re asons that follow, we a ffirm the tria l court’s orde r.

Th e un de rl yin g s ui t was br ou g ht i n 1 98 6 b y va ri ou s taxingun its to rec over 1 de lin qu e nt ta xes, pe na lti e s, and int e re st o we d o n p ro pe rt

y c omm on ly

kn ow n a s 3 00 F ir e sto ne Cir c le (t he “ Pr op e rt

y ” ) i n th e Poi nt V e ntu

re su bd ivi sio n a g a ins t Ric ha

rd M. F a sse tt a

nd Gu a da lup e F a sse tt, the ow ne rs of

the Pr op e rt

y . O n Apr il 1 0, 20 02 , th e tr ia l c ourt e nte re d ju dg me nt f

or the ta xingun its and orde red the cler

k t o issue an orde r of sa le. The c lerk ther eaf ter issued a

n order of sale, thePVPOA ’ s p e ti tion to re cover excess proce eds wa s supported by an af fidavit from PVPOA’s 2 g ener al manag er with attached business rec ords. PVPOA’s g ener al manag er a verr ed that he w as the c us tod ian o f r e c or ds and that the bu sin e ss r e c or ds sh ow ingthe outst and ingfe e s o we d o n th e Pr op e rt y wer e kept in the r egular c ourse of business. Although Be lt argues in his briefingto this C ourt that PVPOA’s claim was f

or “a pproxi mately

21 y ear s of alleg ed, unpaid pr operty owner s’ association dues,” B elt did not offer evidenc e to support this argu m ent or c ontrary evidenc e to PVPOA’s a ff ida vit and bu sin e ss r e c or ds
. 2 Property was sold at a f

orec losure sale in May

200 7 , and the ex cess pr ocee ds from the sale of $1 2, 22 2. 22 we re de po sit e d w iththe c le rk of the c ourt
. I n J une 2007, PVPOA f iled a petition a sserting a claim to the excess p ro ce eds based on past-due proper ty owner s’ association fee s owed on the Property
. PVPOA a sser t ed t h at “Richar d M. Fa s s et t and/or Jus tin Belt have failed to pa y the Club Fund Charg es, Specia l Assessment Fe es, L ate F ees, a nd Attorney

Collection F ees” on the Property “for the followingy ear s and in the followingamounts: Year 2002 in the amount of $9,385.00; Yea r 2003 in the amount of $1,014.00; Year

2004 in the amount of $960.00; Yea r 2005 in t h e amount of $960.00; Yea r 2006 in the am o u n t o f $ 9 6 0 .00; Year 2007, throug h May

1, 2007, in the amount of $400.00; for a total of $13,679.00.” PVPOA claimed that the past-due fee s wer e secured by a li en on the Property as 2 pr ov ide d f

or in t he su bd ivi sio n’ s d e e d r e str ic tio ns . The subdivis i o n ’s d eed r estrictions establish a “ Venture Yac ht and Country Club C h ar g e ” s e c u r e d

b y a l i e no ne a c hp r o p e rty:
I n order to secur e the pay

ment of t he C lub Fund charg e her eby levied, a ve ndor’s lien shall be and is her eby

rese rved in the D eed f

rom the De veloper

to the purcha ser of e a c h lo t or

po rt ion the re of , w hic h li e n s ha ll be enfo rceab le thr ou g h a pp ro pr iate judicial proce eding s by

the Deve loper.I n his first and six th issues, J ustin Be lt asser ts that the applicable l imitations period ba rs 3 PVPOA’s lien claim to the excess proc eeds. I n his second issue, B elt cont en d s that PVPOA’s re me dy wa s to br ingsu it t o col lec t pas t- du e a sso c iatio n f e e s, no t to se e k r e c ov e ry of the e xce ss proce eds fr om a tax foreclosure sale. I n his third, fourth, and fifth issues, B elt contends that sec tions of the pr op e rt

y and ta x co de s e xtinguis he d o r v oid e d PV POA ’s lie n c la im f or pa st- du e fe e s and , if the se c tio ns did

no t, P VPO A’ s li e n c la im p a sse d to the purc ha se r a t the ta x f or e c los ur e sa le
. In h is se ve nth iss ue , Be lt co nte nd s that tria l cou rt e rr or s re su lte d in an i nc or re c t de c isi on

and , in his e ig hth iss ue , B e lt c on te nd s th a t, b e c a us e B e lt w a s a

fo rm e r o wn e r o f t

he P rop ert

y , th e tr ia l c ourt

sh ou ld have or dere d the excess proc eeds distributed to him pursuant to priorities in the tax code. 3 PVP OA ’s bylaws de fi ne “ Clu b Fund Cha rg e ” to i nc lud e “ [d]ue s, a sse ssm e nts , inte re st, late c ha rg e s, maintenanc e fe es, maintena nce fund, and c lub fund cha rg es.” The deed r estrictions wer e re corde d in t he Tr avis County

re a l pr op e rt

y re c or ds
. J ustin Belt also filed a

petition asserting a claim to the excess proce eds as a former
ow ne r o f t he Pr op e rt

y . B e lt purc ha se d the Pr op e rt y fr om Ric ha

rd M. F a sse tt a

nd Gu a da lup e F a sse tt by “ Qu itc la im D e e d” in Jul y 20 06 . T he tr ia l c ourt

he ld t wo he ari ng s o n th e c omp e tin g pe tit ion s to the e xce ss p ro c e e ds , an d, a t the c on c lus ion of the se c on d he ari ng , the tr ia l c ourt or de re d th e e xce ss proce eds disbursed to PVPOA. This appea l followed.

Be lt contends that the trial cour t erre d in orderingthe excess proc eeds f rom the fore closure sa le disbursed to PVPO A, ra i sing the identical eight issues that Ro be rt B e lt r a ise s in 3 Robert Belt v. Point Ve nture Property Owne rs’ Association, Inc ., cause number 03-07- 00701-CV. B oth c a us e s invo lve c omp e tin g c la ims to exc e ss pr oc e e ds fr om t he ta x for e c los ur e sa le of

pr op e rt y
and are sim ila

r f a c tua lly e xce pt a s to the pa

rt ie s, pr op e rt ie s, and

amou nts in t he un de rl yingta x sal e and as to the de eds of c onvey ance . J ustin Belt p u rc h ased the Property by “Quitclaim De ed,” a

nd Robert B elt purcha sed prope rty by “De ed Without W arr anty ,” with spec i fi c languag e that the pr op e rt y wa s c on ve y e d wi th “ a ll e xistin g e nc umb ra nc e s, de bts , lie ns , ta xes, and pr op e rt y own e rs ’4

a sso c iatio n d

ue s. ” Al tho ug h the qu itc la im de e d do e s no t c on ta in t his sp e c if ic langua g e , a

qu itc la im deed convey s only “whatever interest the g rantor ha s in the proper ty .” Se e Di v e rsi

fie d, In c . v . H

all , 23 S.W .3d 403, 407 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (“A s the purcha ser of a qu itc la im d e e d, [a p ur c ha se r] c ann ot en joy the pr ote c tio ns a ff

or de d a bo na fi de purc ha se r, be c a

us e
a g ra nte e in a qu itc la im d e e d is no t an innoc e nt p ur c ha se r w ith out no tic e .” ); see also Ge odyne Energy I ncomeProd. P’ship I-E v . Newton Corp. , 161 S.W .3d 482, 487 (Tex. 2005 ) ( explaining
n at u re o f q u i t cl ai md ee d ). W e c o n cl u d e t h at t h e f ac tu al d i ff

er en ce s i nt h e t wo cau s es d o n o tch an ge
our ana ly sis of the issues raised in Robert Belt v. Point Ve nture Property Owne rs’ Association, Inc ., cause number 03-07- 00701-CV.

B e c a u s e th e is s u e s r a is e d

in e a c ha p p e a l a r e id e n ti c a l, f

o r th e r e a s o n s s tate d

in o ur opinion dated this day

in Robert Belt v. Point Ve nture Propert y Ow n er s ’ Association, Inc ., c a

us e number 03-07- 00701-CV, we overr ule Belt’s issues and affirm t he trial court’s or der disbursingthe excess proce eds to Point Venture Proper ty Owner s’ Association, Inc.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: Jul y

30, 2008