Opinion ID: 6340838
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Mitchell heirs’ 2015 suit

Text: Elizabeth’s heirs (collectively the Mitchells) filed the present suit in 2015—five years after Elizabeth’s death and sixteen years after the foreclosure judgment—against respondents, MAP Resources and other current owners of the mineral interests (collectively MAP). The Mitchells sought declarations that the foreclosure judgment was void as to Elizabeth because she had not been properly served and thus her federal and state constitutional rights had been violated. Specifically, they alleged that the attorney for the Taxing Authorities gave false testimony that Elizabeth’s address could not be ascertained after diligent inquiry because eight warranty deeds on file in the public records at the time of the foreclosure suit showed that Elizabeth owned the subject property and listed a post office box where she could be reached. 4 They contended that if the Taxing Authorities had actually conducted the diligent inquiry they claimed, Elizabeth’s address would have been discovered in the deed records. 4 All eight warranty deeds are included in the record before us in this 2015 suit. Each deed was filed in 1983, names Elizabeth S. Mitchell as the grantee of the property, and lists as Elizabeth’s address “P.O. Box 428, Van Horn, Texas 79855.” 6 The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the trial court. The Mitchells’ motion argued that the foreclosure judgment is void as to Elizabeth and her property because the Taxing Authorities, despite having knowledge of her address, failed to serve her in compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 117a and thereby violated both the United States and Texas Constitutions. Because the judgment is void, they contended that the resulting deeds and sales of the property are also void. 5 The Mitchells sought declaratory relief to that effect and to quiet title to the property. As evidence, the Mitchells provided, among other things, copies of the eight publicly recorded warranty deeds, probate documents regarding Elizabeth’s estate, and copies of documents from the original foreclosure suit, including the citation by posting, statement of evidence, and default judgment. In response to the Mitchells’ motion, MAP raised a number of defenses, including that the Mitchells failed to comply with certain statutory requirements in the Tax Code. Specifically, MAP argued that the Mitchells’ claims are barred by the one-year statute of limitations for challenging tax sales. See TEX. TAX CODE § 33.54(a). MAP also contended that the Mitchells failed to satisfy the Tax Code’s statutory precondition for suits challenging the validity of a tax sale, which requires deposit of any delinquent taxes before the action may be commenced. Id. § 34.08(a). Additionally, MAP argued that the 5After the judgment, the mineral interests were sold at a sheriff’s sale to respondents PBR Properties Joint Ventures, Pecos Bend Royalties, Inc., and Tommy Vascocu, who received a sheriff’s deed. That interest was subsequently conveyed in part to MAP Resources via quitclaim deed. The Mitchells seek to have both the sheriff’s and quitclaim deeds declared void. 7 Mitchells could not collaterally attack the tax judgment because the statement of evidence established that Elizabeth was properly served, and the Mitchells improperly sought to introduce the warranty deeds despite the bar on extrinsic evidence. Finally, MAP argued that the Mitchells’ claims were barred by laches because they unreasonably delayed bringing suit. MAP also filed its own hybrid motion for summary judgment. 6 Its motion raised many of the same grounds it argued in response to the Mitchells’ motion for summary judgment, with the exception of its laches defense. MAP argued in its motion that the Mitchells’ claims failed because they did not file within the statutory limitations period or comply with statutory procedure for challenging a tax sale. It also contended that the Mitchells’ attempt to attack the judgment 6 Motions for traditional summary judgment under Rules 166a(a) or (b) may be combined with Rule 166a(i) no-evidence motions in “hybrid” motions for summary judgment. Binur v. Jacobo, 135 S.W.3d 646, 650–51 (Tex. 2004); see also City of Magnolia 4A Econ. Dev. Corp. v. Smedley, 533 S.W.3d 297, 299 (Tex. 2017) (per curiam). If a party has the burden of proof on claims or defenses, however, it cannot use a no-evidence motion to establish those claims or defenses. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i); Nowak v. DAS Inv. Corp., 110 S.W.3d 677, 680 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.). MAP’s motion sought summary judgment on the grounds that the statutory limitations period in the Tax Code had run, that the Mitchells provided no evidence that the tolling provision of the statute had been triggered, and that the Mitchells’ suit was an improper collateral attack. MAP’s claim that the Mitchells failed to provide evidence that the Tax Code’s tolling provision applied can properly be decided in a no-evidence motion because the Mitchells would have the burden of proving tolling at trial. See Draughon v. Johnson, 631 S.W.3d 81, 85 (Tex. 2021) (“If a defendant prefers to place the burden on the plaintiff to raise a fact issue regarding any aspects of limitations on which the plaintiff would have the burden at trial, it is free to file a no-evidence motion for summary judgment as to those matters.”). Given our disposition, however, we do not reach the tolling issue. 8 collaterally was impermissible because they could not demonstrate that the judgment was void on its face. As evidence, MAP provided copies of the record from the foreclosure suit, the sheriff’s tax deed to PBR Properties Joint Venture, Pecos Bend Royalties, Inc., and Tommy Vascocu, and the quitclaim deed from those parties to MAP Resources. In response to MAP’s motion, the Mitchells contended that MAP’s argument improperly elevates the statutory requirements of the Tax Code over constitutionally mandated due process rights. In their view, accepting MAP’s position would essentially foreclose any collateral attack on a judgment where service was constitutionally inadequate. The Mitchells argued they were not barred from bringing their collateral attack because constitutional due process rights trump statutory requirements. Following a hearing, the trial court granted MAP’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Mitchells’ motion. The court rendered judgment for MAP and the other defendants and ordered a take-nothing judgment on the Mitchells’ claims. The Mitchells appealed.