### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 00 06 -C V

______________________________ BI L L I E DARDEN MI L L ER, ARDENNA M. CADDE L L , AND OT HE R H EI RS O F J. A. MU MPH REY , App e lla nts V. J OHN KENNA AN D B ARBARA A NN KEN NA, Appe llees
On Appea l from the 124th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 2006-2849- B

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issAl th o u g hth e d e e d r e c it e s th e p ur c h a s e o f

a 5 2
. 5 a c r e p ie c e o f

p r o p e rty , a

s ur v e y c larifies 1 that th e Ke nn a

tr a c t a c tua lly

c on ta ins 51 .8 44 a c re s. We w ill c a ll that pr op e rt y the Ke nn a

tr a c t. I n the fa ctual re citation of their summary judgme nt motion, the Ke nnas also mentioned that 2 Plaintiffs failed to descr ibe t he claimed 13.5 acr e tra ct with sufficie nt cer tainty to identify

it. There is no argument beyond that basic a ssertion, and no authorities cited for the point. Such an a ssertion is inadequate ly

briefe d. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P
. 3 8
. 1 (h ). Ina t re s p as s t o try t i t l e s u i t , wh er e p l ai n t i ff

's petition and the resulting judgme nt fail t o adequately descr ibe t he real property involved, the lack of desc ription was fundamental er ror a nd err or on the fa ce of

the re cord which could be r aised on appea l. See Stov all v. Finney , 152 S.W .2d 887, 890–91 (Tex. App.

— Am ar i l l o 1941, no writ). Be cause Plain t i ff

s d i d not attack on a

ppeal a ll gr ounds for the tria l court' s g rant of summar y judgme nt or provide evidenc e to show that they paid taxes on the Kenna trac t, and bec ause e ach of tho se fa ilure s is dis po sit ive of thi s a pp e a l, w e ne e d n ot a dd

re ss t his po int
. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON On May 7, 20 04 , a s p a

rt of a Gr e g g County

ta x for e c los ur e sa le , B arbar a Ann Ke nn a pa id $7 4, 00 0. 00 fo r, and

re c e ive d a c on ve y anc e to h e r b y sh e ri ff ' s tax de e d o f, wh a t w a s d e sc ri be d a s a 52.5 acr e tra ct of land in G reg g County
. The Ke nna tra ct lies just on the Greg g County side of the 1 boundary line betwee n Gre g g and Smith C ounties. Claiming that a 13.5 a cre piece of t he Kenna tra ct
m i g h tb e t h e i r s , B i l l i e D ar d e nM i l l e r , A r d e n n a M
. C a d d e l l , an d

" o th e r h e i r s o f J
. A
. M u mp h r e y" filed, on De cembe r 7, 2006, a tre spass to try title suit ag ainst Ba

rbar a and he r husband, John, in t he District Court of Gre g g County . The Ke nnas filed a motion for summary j udg ment asser ting that Plaintiffs had no evidenc e that the 13.5 a cre trac t w as contained w ithin the Kenna tra ct and that the statute of limitations for attackinga tax deed bar red Plain t i ff

s ' cl aim s. Wit hout specify ing the 2 g rounds, the trial c ourt g ranted summary judgme nt to the Kennas. A ppeal wa s filed by

Plaintiffs Arde nna M. Caddell, B illie Mumphrey , and Melba D. J ohnson, and others who wer e not namedMildred Ramsey , Steven Mauldin, Quentin Mumphrey , J r., and Sathe dia B ush also joined 3 in the appea l although the y wer e not re prese nted or o t h er wi se mentioned in the re cord be low. Attor ne y fo r o the r P la int if

fs , B ill ie D ard e n M ill e r a nd Do ro thy Da rd e n, wh o jo ine d in

the same petition with Appellants, consented to the tria l court' s entry of summary

judgme nt. 3 any wher e in the re cord be low. All a ppellants here in a

re called Plaintiffs. We a ffirm the judg ment 3 of t he trial c o u rt b e c a

u s e ( 1 ) th e Pl a inti f

f s d o n o t a d dr e s s a ll p o s s ib le g r o un d s f o r th e s u mma ry judgme nt, (2) no evide nce show s that any Plaintiff paid any taxes on any part of the Kenna trac t, and (3 ) P la int if

fs did no t pr e se rv e any

tr ia l c ourt

e rr or awa rd ingtit le to t

he Ke nn a s. ( 1) The Plaintif

fs Do Not Address All Possi ble Grounds for the Summary J udgment We reviewde novo a tr ial court 's s u mmary judgme nt. Provident Life & Acc ident Ins. Co.

v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2 0 0 3 ). T h e Kennas' motion for summary judgme nt must be g rante d if there was no e vidence of one or more spec ified elements of Plaintiffs' claims. See LMB, Ltd. v. Moreno , 2 01 S.W. 3d 68 6, 68 8 ( Te x. 20 06 ); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgm t. Co. , 690 S.W .2d 546, 548–49 (Tex. 1985). In decidingwhether the summary

judgme nt rec ord establishes the a bsence of a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t, we view a ll evidence , indulge ever y rea so n ab l e i n ference , and resolve all doubts, in appellant' s favor
. City of Keller v. W ilson , 168 S.W .3d 802, 823 (Tex. 2005); Nixon , 690 S.W .2d at 548–49. When there are mu l t i p l e gro unds for summary judgme nt and the
or de r d oe s n ot s pe c if

y the g ro un d o n w hic h th e summa ry jud g me nt w a s g ra

nte d, an a pp e lla nt m us t neg ate all g rounds on appe al. State Farm Fi re & Cas. Co. v. S.S ., 858 S.W .2d 374, 381 (Tex. 1993). Plaintiffs claim that the Kennas' sole basis for summ ary judgme nt was limitations. To the contra ry , the Kennas soug ht summary judgme nt based on two title-re lated g rounds: that limit ationsAn ac tion attackinga tax sale must be commence d befor e the first anniver sary of the filing 4 of the tax deed for rec ord or, if the proper ty was homestea d or under

cer tain other c onditions, before the s econd anniversa

ry of t he dee d' s execution. SeeT EX . T AX C ODE ANN . § 33.54(a) (Ve rnon 2008). Neither deadline w as met her e. The only limit ations question is whether the limitations ex ception contained in Sec tion 33.54( b) of the T exas Tax C ode applied. See T EX . T AX C ODE ANN . §33.54(b) (Ve rnon 2008). 4 barr ed the Plaintiffs' attack on the tax sale and that there is no evidence that the 13.5 ac res c laimed 4 by Plaintiffs make u p any

part of the Kenna

trac t. Of the two title-re lated g rounds for summar y judgme nt, the P l ai n t i ff

s attacke d only

limit ations. There fore , for that r eason a lone, the summary judgme nt must be affirme d. See id. ( 2) No EvidenceShows That Any Plaintiff Paid Any Taxes on Any Part of the Kenna Tract Ev e n if Pla int if fs ' lim itatio ns argume nt w e re c on sid e re d, it f a ils on its ow n me ri ts. Pla int if fs a sse rt tha t li mit a tio ns do e s n ot b ar t he ir atta c k on the ta x de e d to B arb ara , b e c a us e they paid taxes on t h e p ro p er t y . I t is true that the one- or two-y ear limit ations bars of Sec tion 33 .5 4( a ) o f t

he Te xas T a x Code wo uld no t a pp ly a g a inst on e who w a s n ot s e rv e d w ithta x suit notices and y et paid taxes on the property in the interim. SeeT EX . T AX C ODE ANN . § 33.54(b). And, t h o u ghP l ai n t i ff

s we re n o tj o i n ed i n t h e t ax s u i twh i ch re s u l t edi nth e t ax d ee d t o Barb ar a, an d

th o u gh it further a

ppear s that some Plainti ff s p ai d some taxes on the claimed 13.5 ac re tra ct duringa key tim e pe ri od , th e re is n o e vid e nc e that su c h tr a c t ma de up any pa rt of the Ke nn a

tr a c t. Th e on ly de sc ri pti on

of the c la ime d 1 3. 5 a c re tr a c t in e vid e nc e c ome s f

ro m G re g g County tax records. Those rec ords identify that proper

ty as tax tract R22610 and describe the subject trac t as " AB 139 J . MANSFORD SUR TR 1 TI MBER USE 12.50 ACRES."5

On the other

hand, the Ke n n a t ra ct is listed in the Greg g County tax records a s tax trac t R22 61 1, no t R2 26 10 . T hat f a c t a lon e su g g e sts tha

t th e tw o tr a c ts a

re jus t th a t, t

wo se pa ra te tr a c ts, not one containe d within the other. Also, to support their m otion for summ ary judgme nt, the Kenna s filed deposition testimony of Thomas Ha

y es, the Gr eg g County Appra isal District Chief Appra iser, who st a te d in th a t te s ti mo n y th a t th e Pl a inti f f s ' tax tr a c t nu mb e r R2 2 6 1 0 w a s c r e a te d in e r r o r and does not exist . Although the R22610 number is ref ere nced, the re is no evide nce that a tax-tract map
even e x ists. Finally , in response to reque sts f or admissions, Plaintiffs answe red that they "be lieve the 13 .5 a cres [sic ] tr a c t is a se pa rate tr a c t but are un a

ble to j ud ic ia lly

a dmi t to same . [Pla int if fs ]
a dmi t th a t th e 13 .5 a c re tr a c t is sh ow n a s a se pa ra te tr a c t on

the re c or ds of

the Gr e g g County App rai sal Di st ri ct. " I n sum, Pl aintiffs produc e no evide nce that would show that the Kenna trac t contained a

ny land claimed by

Plaintiffs. There fore , there was no proof that any Plaintiff paid any taxes on any

part of the Ke nna tra ct, which wa s the subject of the tax deed beingattacke d. Thus, Plaintiffs did not show themselves to be e x empt from the ba r of limitations in m akingthat attack. ( 3) Plaintif

fs Did Not Preserve Any

Trial Court Error Aw arding Ti tle to the Kennas Plaintiffs also claim err or in the j udg ment' s awa rd of title to the Kenna s. I t appea rs, howeve r, that Pla int if

fs did no t ma ke tha t c la im t o th e tr ia l c ourt , ins te a d ra isi ngit f or the fi rs t ti me on

a pp e a l. There fore , no err or has be en pre serve d for a ppellate r eview. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1(a).6

We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.

J o s hR
. M o r r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: September 10, 2008 Date D ecide d: October 2, 2008