Court Opinion

ID: 9778258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:57:14.020045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:06.062414
License: Public Domain

OPINION
MIRABAL, Justice.
The main issue in this case is whether an abstract of judgment, recorded in the judgment records, was sufficient to perfect a hen on the property of the judgment debtor. We hold the abstract of judgment was properly worded and indexed.
Before an opinion issued in this case, a majority of the justices of this Court voted to consider the case en banc. Tex.R.App.P. 79(d), (e). We affirm.
Appellant Sarny Holdings, Ltd. brought suit as plaintiff to remove a cloud from its title to land, and for declaratory judgment that the defendants have no right, title, or interest in the land. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court overruled plaintiffs motion, and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, James Letsos, III, Greg Letsos, Mark Letsos, Karen Letsos Case, Vincent Rinando, and John Rinando (the heirs).
*275The uncontroverted summary judgment evidence shows that, on September 23, 1973, a money judgment was entered in favor of the Estate of Lena Maida against S.J. Maida. The judgment was abstracted, and the abstract of judgment was recorded in the Harris County judgment records. Subsequent abstracts of this judgment were recorded in the Harris County judgment records on February 8,1982, and May 14,1992. The defendants in the present case are heirs of Lena Maida.
Plaintiff in the present case acquired title through a chain of conveyances that originated with S.J. Maida, the judgment debtor. It is uncontroverted that, if the abstract of judgment was properly worded, filed and indexed, plaintiff acquired its title subject to the heirs’ judgment lien.
In points of error one and two, plaintiff asserts that no judgment lien attached to the involved property because the abstract of judgment was not properly indexed.
The abstract of judgment, recorded in the Harris County judgment records on May 14, 1992, reads in part:
ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT CAUSE NO. 927,610
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 165TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ANTOINETTE MAIDA LETSOS, GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE OF LENA MAIDA, A PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND
VS.
SJ. MAIDA
I ..., DISTRICT CLERK of Harris County, Texas do hereby certify that the following and foregoing is a true and correct Abstract of Judgment rendered in the 165TH DISTRICT COURT on the 23rd day of August, 1973 in Cause No. 927,610 in favor of the Estate of Lena Maida, a person of unsound mind, Plaintiff, Judgment Creditor, in Judgment vs. S.J. Maida, 8803 Memorial, Houston, Texas 77024, Judgment debtor in said Judgment.2
(Emphasis added.)
Plaintiff argues that the abstract of judgment should have been indexed under the name Antoinette Maida Letsos, Guardian, as the Plaintiff in Judgment. We disagree. The county clerk in charge of indexing abstracts of judgment followed the law exactly when the abstract was indexed.3
The Texas Property Code specifically directs the county clerk, at the same time an abstract of judgment is recorded, to enter the abstract on the alphabetical index to the judgment records, showing:
(1) the name of each plaintiff in the judgment; and
(2) the name of each defendant in the judgment.
Tex.PROP.Code Ann. § 62.004(b)(1), (2) (Vernon 1984). In the present case, the county clerk accurately indexed the abstract of judgment, showing the name of the plaintiff in the judgment as the party who was specifically awarded the judgment: the Estate of Lena Maida, a person of unsound mind.4
*276Further, it is uncontested that the defendant in judgment was properly listed in the abstract of judgment, and the abstract was properly indexed under his name. As a practical matter, purchasers of real estate search the judgment records to determine whether there are any judgments against the seller that would affect title to the property. In the present case, because the abstract of judgment was properly indexed under the name of the judgment debtor, S.J. Maida, appellees had notice that the involved real estate was encumbered by a judgment lien as a result of a judgment in a ease styled “Antoinette Maida Letsos, Guardian of the Estate of Lena Maida, a person of unsound mind v. S.J. Maida”.
We overrule points of error one and two.
The discussion of the remaining points of error does not meet the criteria for publication, Tex.R.AppP. 90, and is thus ordered not published. We affirm.
Principal: $94,500.16
+ Prejudgment interest (30,700 — 2,538.67): 28,161.33
+ Postjudgment interest specified in abstract: 160,266.00
+ Costs 66.00
Balance due as of May 13, 1992: $282,993.48
HUTSON-DUNN, J„ dissents.
OLIVER-PARROTT, C.J., joins the dissent.

. Prior abstracts of judgment, filed in the judgment records on January 3, 1974, and February 8, 1982, respectively, also listed "The Estate of Lena Maida, a person of unsound mind," as the plaintiff in judgment, and S.J. Maida, as the “defendant in judgment.” The previously filed abstracts of judgment both state the style of the case in the 165th District Court as: "Antoinette Maida Letsos, et al. v. S.J. Maida.”

. It is also our opinion that the district clerk properly prepared the abstract of judgment. Although the style of the lawsuit and judgment was "Antoinette Maida Letsos, Guardian of the Estate of Lena Maida, a person of unsound mind v. S.J. Maida,” the judgment specifically states:
It is accordingly, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Estate of Lena Maida, a person of unsound mind, do have of and recover from the Defendant S.J. Maida, the sum of $94,-500.15_ (Emphasis added.)

.We note that, although an estate of a deceased or incompetent person is not a legal entity and cannot sue as such, when the estate’s personal representative appears in or participates in the *276suit, the judgment in favor of the estate is not a nullity. See Dueitt v. Dueitt, 802 S.W.2d 859, 861 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ). In the present case, the personal representative of the estate was the named plaintiff in the style of the pleadings, and was listed in the style appearing on the three recorded abstracts of judgment. Because the personal representative appeared in and participated in the suit, the judgment is clearly valid.