### NUM BER 13-08- 0002 8-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG SA N JA CINTO TITLE SERV ICES OF CORPUS CH RIST I, L LC A ND M A RK S. SUV ER, A pp ellan ts,

v . LIZ A A . PR A TT , A pp ellee. On ap pe al f rom th e 2 8th D istrict Co urt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s R od rigu ez an d Garza

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez On F ebr uar

y 3, 2010, appel lan t Sa n J acinto Titl e Ser v ic es of Cor pus Chr is ti , LLC (S an J aci nto) and appel lee Li z a A. Pr att filed an a g re ed moti on to di smi ss San Jac int o from thi s c ase w it h pr eju dic e pursuantto a s ettl ement be tw een thos e tw o par ti es. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 2.1( a) (2 ), ( c)

. By our opi nio n tod ay , w e g ra nt t hat mot ion and is sue jud g mentA p p e l l a n t M a rk S . S u v e r re m a i n s a p a rty to th e c a s e a n d i s s u b je c t t o th e ju d g m e n t o f th i s C o u rt. 1 San Jaci nt o an d Pr at t ' s m ot i on t o di sm i ss i ndi cat es t hat t he p ar t i es' set t l em ent was not cond i t i oned 2 o n w i th d ra w a l o f t h i s C o u rt's e a rli e r o p i n i o n
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 42

. 1(c ). M ore ove r, m ore t ha n t en da y s ha ve p a s s e d s i n c e th e fi l i n g o f th e m o ti o n to d i s m i s s , a n d S u v e r h a s n o t f i l e d a re s p o n s e
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10. 3. 2 dis mis si ng S a n Jaci nto fr om the cas e. W e al so w it hdr aw our opi nio n and jud g ment of 1 De ce m b e r 17 , 2 0 0 9 , a n d su b st it u te th e fo llo wing. 2 This appeal inv olv es a r eal es tate tr ansac ti on betw een app ell ant M ar k S . Su v er and Pratt f acilitate d at th e of f ices of San Ja c in t o
. P la intif f Suver appea ls the trial court's jud g ment, after a bench tri al, in f av or of def endant Pr att. By

tw o i ss ues, Suv er

co mplai ns that (1 ) the t ri al cour

t er re d i n n u lli fying h is ad v alo re m tax l ien ag ain st Pr att; and (2 ) the tr ial co urt fail ed to re mov e his Inter nal Rev enue Ser v ic e (I RS ) tax li en on the pr oper ty , on
w hi c h he i nt en ds t o for ec l os e. W e affi r m. I. BA CKGROUND Pr att ow ned a house in Cor pus Chr is ti that w as infest ed bym old and bur dened b y subs tanti al tax

l ien s h eld by

both the IR S and Nue ces County . In l ate F ebr uar y 2004, on the Thursday

before the Tues day

co urthous e forec los ur e of her home, Pr att w as app roach ed b y

Suver, w ho o f

f ered her an op portu nity to avoid f oreclosu re b y selling him the h ouse. To r emov e her hous e from t he f or ecl osur e lis t, Pr att enter ed into an i nst all ment pay ment pl an w it h N ueces County f or her deli nq uent ad v alo re m tax es. Suv er agr eed t o hel p Pr att by

pay ing N ueces C ounty the firs t i nst all ment of $3,000. Suv er and Pr att then
cam e to an agreeme nt regarding the sale o f t he hou se. B y

t heir agreem ent , Pratt would sel ler-fin ance the h ouse w it h a z er o- per cent -i nter est$50, 000 promis sor y note from Su v er to P ratt

. S u ver

ag re ed to make the p ay ments on Pratt' s i nst all ment ag re ement w it h3

Nue ces C ounty

for t he del inq uent ad v alo re m tax es and to be ul ti matel y r espon si ble for t he enti re amount of the del inq uency
. Suv er al so ag re ed to obta in a c omplete r ele ase of Pr att' s o bli g ati ons to t he IRS. Suv er and Pr att ag re ed th at t he hous e w oul d s er v e as col lat er al for th eir

ag re ement. Shor tl y thereafter, Suv er

and Pr att si g ned a w ri tten cont ra ct for th e s ale of the house , w hic h pur por

ted t o memor ial iz e the ir ag re ement an d pr ov ide d for a M ar ch 15, 2 004 closing. San Ja cinto e scrow ed th e con tract an d agreed to cond uct th e closing. Becau se S u v e r w a s u n a b l e t o o b t a i n t h e fu n d s t o c l o s e o n M a r c h 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , t h e c l o s ing date w as
mov ed to M ar ch 26, 2 004. After the c los ing , Su v er took pos ses si on of the cl osi ng doc ument s
. B e fo re r ecordin g the d ocument s, how ev er , Su v er alter ed the "C lau ses and Cov enants " por ti on of the deed of tru st by

cross ing out "Gr antor " and handw ri ti ng in "Gr antee, " w hic h eff ect iv ely ch ang ed the o bli g ati on to "pay

al l tax es and as ses sments on t he proper ty " f ro m h im sel f to Pr att. Suver then recorded the do cum ent s. In t he y ear

foll ow ing the cl osi ng , Su v er fail ed to make pay ment on the $ 50,000 pr omis sor

y note

. He did pay

al l of the del inq uent ad v alo re m pr oper ty tax es and s ecur ed
a r e l e a s e o f t h e IR S's lien on t h e h o u s e b y p a y i n g $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 t o t h e I R S o n P r a t t ' s b e h a l f. How ev er , t he IR S is st il l pursui ng Pr att personal ly for $ 56,102. 01 i n pas t due federal incom e taxes. Beca use o f

his non-p aymen t on th e prom issory note and failure to f ulf ill his prom ise to ob tai n a c omplet e r ele ase of all obl ig ati ons Pr att has to t he IR S, P ra tt senta l etter to Suv er i n Oc tober

2005, noti fyi ng hi m of her in te n tion to se ll the house i n a n on- jud ic ial4

forecl osur e s ale

. Suv er fil ed th is l aw sui t i n D ecember 2005, to enj oin the forecl osur e and obtai n damag es for w ro ng ful f or ecl osur e. The tr ial courtgr anted a temporar y r est ra ini ng
or der , and after

a he ar ing , t he tr ial co urt g ra nted a t e m p o rary i nju nct ion enj oin ing the forecl osur e s ale

. Pr att filed her ans w er and count er cl aims ag ain st Suv er , al leg ing ca uses of acti on fo r br each of contractand fraud. In September 2006, Pr att added S an J aci nto
as a thi rd -p arty

defendant and fil ed c lai ms aga ins t San Jaci nto for breac h of cont ra ct, fraud and mi sr epr esent ati on, n eg li g ence, neg li g ent mi sr epr esent ati on, a nd v iol ati ons of the Tex as Dec epti v e Tra de Pract ic es Act

. Th e c a se w as tr ied to the b ench in Oct ober 2007, and the t ri al cour t ent er ed jud g ment i n fav or

of Pr att. The j udg ment, in re lev ant p art, li fted the inj unct ion g ra nted by the tr ial cour

t to Suv er to pr ev ent Pr att' s non- jud ic ial forec los ur e on the p ro per ty , r eformed the d eed of trus t to delete the hand- w ri tten al ter ati ons by Suv er and refle ct tax

l ien s o n the pr oper ty , and or der ed th at t he defendants w er e j oin tl y and sev er ally l ia b le to Pr att for $55,289 .23. Al l other

rel ie f req uest ed by

the par ti es and notsp eci fical ly g ra nted by

the jud g ment w as deni ed. The tr ial co urt al so is sued tw enty -fiv e pages of f ind ing s of f actand conclu sions of

law

. In its conclu sions of law , the trial court foun d Suver liable for breach of contract

. II. STA ND A RD OF R EVIE W In an appeal of a bench tr ial on the meri ts, findi ng s of f actand conc lus ion s o f law are spe cif ically

and mea ningf ully

tied to a ppro priate stand ards of app ellate rev iew

and are ther efore t ru ly

benefic ial to appel lat e r ev iew

. See Chr ys ler C or p. v . Bl ack m on , 841 S.W .2d 844, 853 ( Tex

. 1992)

. Leg al and factu al suffici ency of the e v ide nce sta ndar ds of rev iew5

g ov er n an appeal of a benc h tr ial , and ac cordin g ly , i t i s i ncumbentupon the a ppel lan t t o attac k t he findi ng s b y

appropr iat e l eg al and factu al suffici ency poi nts of er ro r. Carrasco v. Stewart , 224 S .W .3d 3 63, 3 66-6 7 (Te x . App .–E l Pa so 200 6, no pet. ); Ser ra no v . U nio n Pl anter s B ank, N .A. , 162 S.W .3d 576, 580 (Tex

. App.–E l Paso 2004, pet. deni ed)

. W hen a par ty appeal s fr om a ben ch tr ial , i t mus t compla in of spec ificf ind ing s and concl usi ons of the t ri al cour

t. Carrasco , 224 S.W .3d at 36 7; see als o C olm ener o v . M ar ti nez , N o. 13 -0 8- 00246- CV , 2008 W L 4938277, at *4 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti Nov . 20, 2008, pet . den ied ) (mem. op.)

. A g ener al compl ain t ag ain st the t rial co urt' s j udg ment doe s n ot presenta jus ti ci abl e q uest ion

. Carrasco , 224 S.W .3d at 367; see a lso Colm ene ro , 2 0 0 8 WL 4938277, at *4. Al thoug h findi ng s o f f actar e notco ncl usi v e w hen, as in thi s cas e , a compl ete repor

ter 's r ecord appea rs in the re cord, "uncha ll eng ed findi ng s o f f actar e bi ndi ng on th e ap pellat e cou rt unless t h e con trary is establishe d as a m atte r of law , or if th ere is
no ev ide nce to s uppor

t t he findi ng ." C it

y of Cor pus Chr is ti v. T ayl or , 126 S.W .3d 7 12, 7 17 (Te x . App .–Corp us Christi 2004 , pet . w ithdra w n). III . DI SC US SION A . Th e Ad Valo rem T ax L ien In hi s first is sue, Suv er ar g ues that the tr ial cour t er re d in nul li fyi ng his ad v alo re m tax l ien a gainst Pr att. Pr ior to cl osi ng , Pratt ex ecut ed and Suv er r ecorded w it h N ueces Cou nty a do cumententi tl ed "Affidav itof Trans fer of Tax Li en." Suv er

co ntends thatthe documenttr ansfer re d the l ien hel d by N ueces C ounty

to h im a nd th at, becau se the l ien
w as ne v er prope rly

rele ased , the t rial cou rt e rred in nullif y ing th e docu me nt. T he p remise of Su ver' s ar g ument i s fla w ed, h ow ev er
. The thr ustof Suv er 's arg ument ap pears t o be6

aimed at preser

v ing a li en re lat ed to the del inq uent ad v alo re m tax es he all eg es sti ll ex is ts in hi s fa vor aga in st Pr a tt

. Ho wever, in hi s b rie f , S u ver e xpre ss ly dis cla im s a n y cha lle n ge to t he findi ng s o f f acti ss ued by the tr ial cour t, w hic h w e c oncl ude w er e s uppor ted b y the
ev ide nce and noter ro neous as a mat ter of law and w hic h prov ide , i n r ele v ant p art, that: 20. Som etim e prior to March 23, 200 4, Suver obta ined Pratt's signature on a documentti tl ed "A f f id a v itof Trans fer of Tax Li en," a dmit ted a t trial as Plaintif

f 's Ex hibit 4 ("P X- 4" ).

. . . . 22. Suv er

r epr esent ed to Pr att that

– a
. PX-4 w a s a do cu m e n t u se d to fa cil it a te clo sin g. b. PX -4 was a document used to establ is h to the s ati sfacti on of San J aci nto t hat a n ag re ement ha d been made f or pay ment of the delinquen t ad valorem ta x es.

. . . . 25. It w as nev er

i ntende d t h a t PX -4 w as to be us ed as a do cumentto transf er a tax l ien he ld by Nuece s Count y to Suver. 26. W it h r espec t t o PX -4 , t he i ntent ion of Pr att a n d Suv er w as that, ef f ective upon closing, the term s and obligations con taine d in PX-4 w oul d merg e into the cl osi ng documents and no long er be e ff ect iv e, as Suv er w as ass uming the obl ig ati on to pay al l tax es re ferenc ed by PX -4

. Beca use w e ar e bound by the pr ecedi ng findi ng s of the tr ial co urt, w e ar e unpersuade d by Suv er 's argum e n t t hat h e s ti ll hol ds a l ien on t he proper ty i n q uest ion —no li en w as ev er
cr eated by

the document

i n q uest ion

. See T

ayl or , 126 S.W .3d a t 717 ( hol din g that unch allenged f indings of fact are b inding on th e ap pellat e cou rt unless th e con trary is esta blished byapp ellant as a ma tter of law or the re is no e v iden ce to sup port th e f inding). Suv er 's first is sue is ov er ru led

.7 B. T he IR S T ax L ien By hi s s econd i ss ue, S uv er appears t o procl aim his int enti on to forecl ose a l ien he suppo sedl y

hol ds on th e proper

ty for pa yi ng $50, 000 of Pr att' s feder al inc ome tax del inq uency
. How ev er , by thi s i ss ue, S uv er

does not compl ain of any er ro r by the tr ial
cour t or a sk thi s C our

t for any r eli ef. See Pac. Em

ployer s Ins. C o. v

. D ayton , 958 S. W .2d 452 , 455 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 19 97, pet. den ied) (holdin g tha t a mere abstract prop osition o f

la w o r gene ral co mp laint is " too gen eral and in def inite to m erit our rev iew ");
see als o T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( i) , (j ). Fi ndi ng no cont ro v er sy to re sol v e i n Suv er 's se cond is sue, w e ov er ru le it

. See D ayton , 958 S.W .2d a t 455 (overruling app ellant 's issue w here the c our t w as "unabl e to dis cer n any spec ific co mplai nt r eg ar din g any ac ti on, i nact ion , or
ru li ng of the t ri al cour

t") ; see als o T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.1.

IV. C ON CL US ION Hav ing ov er ru led Suv er 's i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.
NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Del iv er ed and filed the 19th day of Aug ust , 201 0.