Court Opinion

ID: 9610657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:44:53.901258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:03.114057
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Justice HINOJOSA.
The majority concludes that the evidence in this case is factually sufficient to establish that appellee received actual notice that a lien affidavit was filed against his property pursuant to section 53.055 of the Texas Property Code. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 53.055 (Vernon Supp.2004). Section 53.055 provides, in relevant part:
A person who files an affidavit must send a copy of the affidavit by registered or certified mail to the owner or reputed owner at the owner’s last known business or residence address not later than the fifth day after the date the affidavit is filed with the county clerk.
Id In interpreting this statute, the majority holds: “The statute ... does not require that the lien affidavit actually be filed before notice is sent.” Because I disagree with the majority’s interpretation, I respectfully dissent.
It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that we are to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Fleming Foods of Tex. v. Rylander, 6 S.W.3d 278, 284 (Tex.1999). If the language in a statute is unambiguous, we must seek the intent of the legislature as found in the plain and common meaning of the words and terms used. Sorokolit v. Rhodes, 889 S.W.2d 239, 241 (Tex.1994). In applying the plain and common meaning of the language in a statute, courts may not by implication enlarge the meaning of any word in the statute beyond its ordinary meaning; such implication is inappropriate when legislative intent may be gathered from a reasonable interpretation of the statute as it is written. Id.
Section 53.055 clearly provides: “[a] person who files an affidavit” must send notice “no later than the fifth day after the date the affidavit is filed.” Tex. PRop.Code Ann. § 53.055 (Vernon Supp.2004) (emphasis added). Twice the statute refers to the filing of the affidavit. I would hold that section 53.055 requires that a lien affidavit actually be filed before notice is sent.
Because the record in this case shows that notice was sent before the affidavit was filed, not after, I would hold the evidence is factually insufficient to establish that appellee received the notice required by section 53.055. Accordingly, I would overrule appellant’s second issue and address appellant’s remaining issue regarding the exclusion of testimony.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.