Court Opinion

ID: 9910677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-17 09:11:41.002674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:49.284628
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 12, 2023.

                                     In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                             NO. 14-23-00008-CV

                       ROZLON THOMAS, Appellant
                                       V.
HARRIS COUNTY, HARRIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
  PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, HARRIS
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, HARRIS COUNTY HOSPITAL
 DISTRICT, CITY OF HOUSTON, HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
SYSTEM, AND HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM, Appellees

                   On Appeal from the 151st District Court
                           Harris County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. 2019-43662

                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In 2014, appellees Harris County, Harris County Department of Education,
Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Harris County Flood Control District,
Harris County Hospital District, City of Houston, Houston Independent School
District, and Houston Community College System (collectively, “Harris County”)
filed a delinquent tax suit on property owned in part by appellant Rozlon Thomas.
After the matter was referred to a tax master for an evidentiary hearing, the trial
court signed a final judgment in favor of Harris County.

       Approximately three years later, Thomas filed a petition for bill of review to
set aside the final judgment. Harris County filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which
the trial court granted. For the reasons below, we affirm the dismissal of Thomas’s
petition for bill of review.

                                     BACKGROUND

      Harris County filed an original petition in 2014, seeking to collect unpaid
taxes owed on a piece of residential property in north Houston. The petition
named 14 defendants, including Thomas. Thomas filed an answer to the petition,
asserting that she paid the delinquent taxes owed on the property and had
continued to pay the tax assessments in a timely manner.

       The tax master set the matter for an evidentiary hearing and notice of the
hearing was sent via certified mail to the address listed on Thomas’s answer. The
notice was returned to the sender and marked “unclaimed, unable to forward.”
Following the evidentiary hearing, the tax master signed a report finding that
approximately $12,000 in delinquent taxes were owed on the residential property.
The trial court signed a final judgment on March 30, 2016, incorporating the tax
master’s findings.

       In June 2019, Thomas filed a “Bill of Review to Set Aside the Final
Judgment and a New Trial with Sanctions and Exemplary Damages Against
Angelica Hernandez[1] for Fraud on the Court.” Thomas alleged the tax master
committed numerous errors in the proceedings and asserted that “[t]he Tax Court
      1
         Hernandez is one of the attorneys that represented Harris County in the underlying
delinquent tax proceedings.

                                            2
conducts a kangaroo court which constitutes extrinsic fraud upon the court.”

      Harris County responded with a plea to the jurisdiction and asserted that two
bases warranted the dismissal of Thomas’s petition: (1) sovereign immunity, and
(2) mootness. With respect to mootness, Harris County pointed out that a “Release
of Judgment” had been filed in the underlying delinquent tax proceedings.
Therefore, “[b]ecause the Taxing Authorities no longer have the power or right to
execute on the judgment of which [Thomas] complains, a controversy no longer
exists and the extant cause of action should be dismissed for that reason.”

      The trial court scheduled a hearing on Thomas’s petition for bill of review
and Harris County filed a “Response to Trial Preparation Order.” In its response,
Harris County asserted that Thomas paid the outstanding taxes owed on the
residential property in August 2016.              Harris County attached as evidence an
“Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment Lien and/or Abstract of
Judgment”       filed    in   the    underlying       delinquent     tax   proceeding.           The
Acknowledgment states that the 2016 final judgment for recovery of delinquent
taxes was “paid and satisfied” and, accordingly, any abstract of the judgment lien
was “extinguished.” Pointing to this Acknowledgment, Harris County argued that
the taxing authorities “no longer have the power or right to execute on the
judgment of which [Thomas] complains,” rendering the underlying action moot.

      The hearing was held in December 2022 and both parties appeared.2
Afterwards, the trial court signed an “Order Granting Final Plea to the Jurisdiction
and Dismissing Suit with Prejudice to Refiling and in the Alternative, Take
Nothing Judgment After Non-Jury Trial.” Thomas filed a notice of appeal.

      2
          A reporter’s record of the hearing was not included as part of the appellate record.

                                                  3
                                     ANALYSIS

      Thomas represented herself pro se in the bill of review proceeding and
continues to do so on appeal. Although we construe pro se briefs liberally, pro se
appellants are held to the same standards as appellants represented by counsel to
avoid giving them an unfair advantage. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573
S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978); Reule v. M & T Mortg., 483 S.W.3d 600, 608
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied).            Liberally construed,
Thomas’s appellate brief raises two issues:

      1.     The tax master “violate[d] Tex. Tax Code rules and procedures
             denying [Thomas’s] due process rights.”
      2.     The trial court erred in granting Harris County’s plea to the
             jurisdiction.
However, because Thomas fails to challenge the specific grounds raised in Harris
County’s jurisdictional plea, we overrule her issues on appeal and affirm the trial
court’s order.

      The review of an order sustaining a plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing
the case is limited to matters actually presented to the trial court. City of Mont
Belvieu v. Enter. Prods. Operating, LP, 222 S.W.3d 515, 519 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.).          Accordingly, in an appeal from a
jurisdictional plea, the appellant “must attack all independent bases or grounds that
fully support a complained-of ruling or judgment.”          Id. (internal quotation
omitted).

      As stated above, Harris County’s plea to the jurisdiction asserted that
Thomas’s petition should be dismissed because the underlying matter was moot.
To support this argument, Harris County filed an “Acknowledgement of
Satisfaction of Judgment Lien and/or Abstract of Judgment” showing that the
outstanding taxes assessed in the 2016 final judgment had been paid in full.
                                         4
      A case is moot when the court’s action on the merits cannot affect the
parties’ rights or interests. Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris Cnty. v. Douglas, 544
S.W.3d 486, 493 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied). Under the
mootness doctrine, courts must avoid rendering advisory opinions by only deciding
issues that present a live controversy at the time of the decision. Id. Accordingly,
if a case is or becomes moot, the court must dismiss the case for want of
jurisdiction. Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012).

      In similar cases, courts have held that the satisfaction of delinquent taxes
renders moot a subsequent challenge to the underlying assessment of those taxes.
See, e.g., Alhadi v. Grand Lakes Mun. Util. Dist. #2, No. 01-21-00551-CV, 2022
WL 1182834, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 21, 2022, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (per curiam) (the appellant’s challenge to the final judgment granting tax liens
was moot after the property “was sold at a public auction in an amount sufficient to
satisfy the tax liens”); Goad v. Cnty. of Guadalupe, No. 04-14-00497-CV, 2016
WL 402332, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 3, 2016, pet. denied) (mem.
op.) (an appeal from a judgment for delinquent taxes was moot “due to voluntary
satisfaction of the judgment”); Overdeer v. Travis Cnty., No. 03-05-00179-CV,
2005 WL 2650144, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 16, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.)
(“As a general rule, a judgment debtor’s voluntary payment and satisfaction of an
adverse judgment moots the controversy, waives the debtor’s right to appeal, and
requires dismissal of the case.”); F.D.I.C. v. Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., No.
B14-91-00899-CV, 1992 WL 117402, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
June 4, 1992, no writ) (not designated for publication) (holding that voluntary
payment of taxes, penalties, and interest owed by judgment debtor satisfied all
relief requested in the trial court, thereby disposing of the controversy and
rendering the matter moot).

                                         5
      Here, Thomas failed to address mootness both in the trial court and on
appeal.    Even construed liberally, Thomas’s challenges fail to “attack all
independent bases or grounds” asserted in the jurisdictional plea. See City of Mont
Belvieu, 222 S.W.3d at 519; see also Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). Based on our review
of the record and the relevant case law cited above, Harris County’s argument and
evidence addressing mootness are sufficient to support the trial court’s order
granting the plea to the jurisdiction. See City of Mont Belvieu, 222 S.W.3d at 519;
see also, e.g., Alhadi, 2022 WL 1182834, at *2; Goad, 2016 WL 402332, at *1-2;
Overdeer, 2005 WL 2650144, at *1; F.D.I.C., 1992 WL 117402, at *1. Therefore,
because this ground fully supports the trial court’s order granting Harris County’s
jurisdictional plea, Thomas failed to show that the trial court’s order constitutes
error. See City of Mont Belvieu, 222 S.W.3d at 519.

      In her petition for bill of review, Thomas also requested that Harris County’s
attorneys be sanctioned “to deter them from ever violating anybody else’s
[F]ourteen[th] amendment rights under the Constitution.” The record does not
indicate that the trial court ruled on this request and, in her appellate brief, Thomas
does not raise any arguments with respect to her request for sanctions. Therefore,
Thomas failed to preserve this issue for appellate review and the trial court’s
presumed denial of her request for sanctions does not constitute an abuse of
discretion. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; K. Griff Investigations, Inc. v. Cronin, 633
S.W.3d 81, 96 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.) (“We review a trial
court’s award or denial of sanctions for an abuse of discretion.”).

      We overrule Thomas’s issues on appeal.

                                    CONCLUSION

      We affirm the trial court’s December 7, 2022 “Order Granting Final Plea to
the Jurisdiction and Dismissing Suit with Prejudice to Refiling and in the
                                          6
Alternative, Take Nothing Judgment After Non-Jury Trial.”

                                      /s/       Meagan Hassan
                                                Justice

Panel consists of Justices Hassan, Poissant, and Wilson.

                                            7