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

NO. 03-05-00179- CV

Eva nge line S. O ve r de e r , A ppe lla nt

v. Travis County, City of

Austin, Aus tin Ind ependent School District and Au stin Com m uni ty College , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GV401703 , HO NORAB LE JOH N K. DIETZ, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Evang eline S. Over deer appea ls the district court’s judg ment finding that she owe d delinquent taxes plus int ere st, penalties, and c ourt costs and orde ring her property sold. Overde er paid a por tion of the judgme nt a

nd enter ed into a

n installment a g ree ment with the Travis County Tax Of fi c e in whic h s he pr omi se d to pa y the re ma ini ngc os ts a

nd fe e s a s w e ll a s o the r d e lin qu e nt t a xes. Th e ins ta llm e nt a g re e me nt c on ta ine d th e fo llo wi ngstate me nt: A prope rty

owner ’s execution of an installment ag ree ment under this s ec t ion is an ir re vo cabl e admi ssi on

of lia bil ity fo r a ll t a xes, pe na lti e s, and int e re st ( c ourt

c os ts, fe e s, and a tto rn e y ’s fe e s; i f a

pp lic a ble ) t hat are su bje c t to the a g re e me nt. This lang uag e is taken f

rom section 33.02(c ) of the pr operty tax code. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 33.02(c) (West 2001). I n light of the installment ag ree ment, Travis County has moved this Court2

to dismi ss the appea l, or in the alternative, aff irm the district court’s judg ment, contendingthat there is no longe r a c ase or

controve rsy

betwee n the par

ties. Se e F. D. I. C. v . Nue c es Co un ty , 886 S.W .2d 76 6, 76 7 ( Te x. 19 94 ); Lincoln Property Co. v. Kondos , 110 S.W .3d 712, 715 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.) (e vents occ urringafte r judg ment may rende r appe al moot). As a g ener al rule, a j u d gm ent debtor’ s voluntary pay ment and satisfa ction of an adver se judg ment moots the controversy , waives the debtor’s right to appea l, and re quires dismissal of the c ase. Miga v. J

ensen , 96 S.W. 3d 20 7, 21 1 (T e x. 20 02 ). Th is do e s no t me an th a t any pa y me nt,
even a voluntary one, moots the controve rsy and waives the rig ht to appea l. Id . The supre me cour t ha s he ld pa

y me nts ma de to avo id int e re st and pe na lti e s w e re no t v olu nta ry under the rule a

nd did not
ex t i n guish the controver sy . Se e id .; Hi gh lan d Ch ur c h o

f Ch ris t v . P owe ll , 6 4 0 S. W. 2 d 2 3 5 , 237 ( T e x. 1 9 8 2 )
. T h is Co u rt r e c e n tl y h e ld th a t a p ay me n t o f a c iv il p e n a lt

y , w h e n a ttached to acover letter indicating the par t y ’s intention to appeal, also did not rende r the a ppeal moot. See B uddy Gregg Motor Homes, Inc. v. Motor VehicleBd. , No. 03-04-00200- CV, 2005 Tex. App. L EXI S 5953, at *58 (Te x . App.—Austin J uly 28, 2005, no pet. h.). “ [P ]ay ment made on a judgme nt w ill not moot
an a pp e a l of that ju dg me nt i f t

he jud g me nt d ebt or cle arl y e xpre sse s an inte nt t

hat he int e nd s to exercise his r ight of appea l a nd appellate relief

is not futile.” Miga , 96 S.W .3d at 212 (citing Fe rre ll v. Trailmobile, Inc. , 223 F.2d 697, 698 (5th Cir. 1955) ). The F ifth Circuit ex plained this exception in Fe rre ll :
There are , of cour se, circ umstances in which that ru l e i s not applicable; e .g . when such pay ment i s by

way of compromise or

shows an intention to abide by the judgme nt, when the pay

ment is c oupled with the acc eptanc e of the benef its under the judgme nt, or when c ompliance with the judg ment rende rs appe llate re lief futile.3

22 3 F .2 d a t 69 8; se e Ge ne v a To we rs T e nn an ts O rg . v . F

e de ra te d M

or tga geIn v esto rs , 504 F.2d 483, 485 (9th Cir. 1974).

He re , O ve rd e e r a

pp e a le d a jud g me nt f

ind inghe r l ia

ble fo r de lin qu e nt pr op e rt y ta xes. S h e t h en p ai d

a p o rt i o n o f t h e j u d gm en tan d

en t er ed i n t o an agr ee m en twi t hT ra v i s C o u n t y t h ro u gh which she w ould avoid fore closure a nd be per mitted to pay

the re maining f

ees a nd costs and other delinquent taxes in mont hly installments. As pa rt of that agree ment, Over deer irrevoc ably

admitted l i ab i l i t y fo r all taxes, penalties, intere st, and costs subject to the agree ment. Although O verde er
c on te nd s that she e nte re d into the ins ta llm e nt ag re e me nt und e r pr ote st an d und e r dur e ss, sh e pr e se nts no evi d en ce suppor

ting this claim, and the installment ag ree ment is a compromise whic h demonstrates he r i n t ent to abide by the judg ment. Se e Fe rre ll , 223 F.2d at 698. The installment ag ree ment was c oupled with the bene fit of avoidingfore closure, a nd under the terms of the statute, the execution of t he ins tallment ag ree ment rende red a ppellate r elief f

utile. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. 33.02(c)
. “A party should not be allowed to simply chang e [ her] mind about pursuing t he ca se or mislead [her] op p o n ent into thinking the contr oversy is over.” Miga , 96 S.W .3d at 212. Acc ording ly , we hold that the inst allment ag ree ment exti ng uished the ca se or c ontroversy betwee n the par ties. We dismi ss the appea l for wa nt of jurisdiction.

Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Pember

ton Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: August 16, 2005