Court Opinion

ID: 9655102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:00:16.810422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:14.441128
License: Public Domain

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DON BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Wfliat the majority has done is judicially create an exception to the long standing rule that the foreclosure of a superior lien1 extinguishes all inferior liens2 claiming the rule should not apply in the redemption arena. Wfliile *563not exactly on point, a case where redemption was a factor, but not the issue, Murphee Property Holdings, Ltd. v. Sunbelt Savings Ass’n of Texas, 817 S.W.2d 850, 851 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991) in its factual set-up acknowledged the long standing rule:3
On October 21, 1986, Mission Bend Municipal Utility District No. 1 (“the District”) filed the tax suit against Highway 6 Venture to collect taxes assessed against the 61 acres of land during 1985, and to obtain the judicial foreclosure of the District’s tax hen.
Sunbelt, the record hen holder on the property, was not made a party to the tax suit. By certified mail from the District’s attorney, Sunbelt received written notice on November 3, 1986, of the tax suit and the fact that its hen interest in the property was subject to cancellation by virtue of the District’s tax hen.
Although Highway 6 Venture was served with citation, it failed to appear in the tax suit. On December 19, 1986, the District was granted a default judgment against Highway 6 Venture for $105,445.88, and for the judicial foreclosure and sale of the property. On December 26, 1986, Sunbelt received written notice, again by certified mail from the District’s attorney, that judgment in the tax suit had been entered, and that Sunbelt’s interest in the property could be lost if it did not take immediate action.
In this case, Associates was joined as a defendant4 and filed a general denial. Both as a party and under the deed of trust, Associates could have paid the taxes and sought reimbursement from the Hunts through its own foreclosure if necessary.5 Associates could have also protected its lien by bidding at the foreclosure sale. For whatever reason, Associates chose not to act until after the redemption by the Hunts and now have convinced the majority to create this exception to a long standing rule that has served both consumers and the lending industry well.6
There is no reason to lengthen this dissent by describing the mischief that might be created between third party purchasers at tax sales and potential redemptors towards lien holders to avoid the “foreclosures at tax sales do not extinguish liens” rule established by the majority or even the mischief that might be created be*564tween lien holders and potential redemp-tors towards third-party purchasers. Suffice to say, these potentials exist and they would not were this court to stay the course and not create this new exception. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.

. It is undisputed the tax lien was superior to Associates’ lien. Priority of Tax Liens Over Other Property' Interests. See Tex Tax Code Ann. § 32.05 (Vernon 2002).

. Diversified Mortg. Investors v. Lloyd D. Blay-lock Gen. Contractor, Inc., 576 S.W.2d 794, 806 (Tex.l978)(op. on reh’g); Irving Lumber Co. v. Alltex Mortg. Co., 468 S.W.2d 341, 343-44 (Tex. 1971).

. As a part of the factual "set-up” this is clearly dicta, but it shows how the industry and the courts viewed the rule.

. An unbroken line of decisions by Texas Courts, dealing with a variety of statutes, has uniformly held that a lien holder must be joined as a party in a suit to enforce a tax lien, and that any judgment rendered absent the joinder of such a lien holder is defective in that it does not dispose of the rights of all of the parties interested in the property. Coakley v. Reising, 436 S.W.2d 315, 318 (Tex.1968), appeal after remand sub nom., Coakley v. Crow, 457 S.W.2d 431, 433 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied, Coakley v. Reising, 402 U.S. 906, 91 S.Ct. 1376, 28 L.Ed.2d 646 (1971); Murphee, 817 S.W.2d at 851; Norris v. Harry Hott & Assocs., Inc., 612 S.W.2d 630, 632 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1981, no writ); Sanchez v. Hillyer-Deutsch-Jarratt Co., 27 S.W.2d 634, 635 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1930, writ ref'd); State Mortgage Corp. v. Groos, 12 S.W.2d 260, 262 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1928, writ dism’d w.o.j.); Ballv. Carroll, 42 Tex.Civ.App. 323, 92 S.W. 1023, 1026 (Galveston 1906, writ ref'd).

. The judgment reflects there was $8,316.84 of taxes and attorneys' fees owing against the home with a fair market value of $111,160.

. Throughout my private practice, I perhaps mal-practiced the few lender clients I was fortunate to represent when I advised them to "bid-in” their liens at tax sales or forever lose them.