CLOSEClose Law.com Menu
 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Roanell Session and Charles Woods each independently put resources into, and both claim, 2.55 acres of real property in the Walker Pettet Survey, A-624, in Rusk County (the disputed property). By 1990, Session had taken possession of, and erected fencing and a building on, the disputed property. In a 2002 tax sale, Woods purchased 22.6 acres in the same headright survey and received a tax deed, which was filed for record Dec. 10, 2002. Later, Woods removed the fence Session had installed, threatened to raze the building Session had built there and demanded that Session vacate the disputed property. On May 3, 2005, Session filed suit against Woods setting out a cause of action for trespass to try title, claiming that Session’s use and occupancy of the disputed property, predating Woods’ tax deed, had ripened limitations title, which defeats Woods’ tax title to the extent it applied to the disputed property. Woods sought and was granted summary judgment on the basis that Texas Tax Code �33.54 allows an attack on a tax sale only if it is initiated within one year � in some situations, two years � after the tax deed is filed for record. Here, more than two years passed from the time the tax deed was filed, Dec. 10, 2002, until Session filed suit, May 3, 2005. Woods argued that because limitations had expired on any action attacking the tax deed, Session must lose as a matter of law regardless of how effectual Session’s arguments might have been if timely made. The trial court agreed with Woods. HOLDING:Affirmed. Woods’ motion for summary judgment, the court stated, was supported by the following summary judgment evidence: the judgment from the tax suit, the order of sale from the tax suit, a copy of the sheriff’s deed, an abstractor’s certificate and Woods’ affidavit stating that an abstract company did a title search at his request on the disputed property that found he and his predecessors in title are the only parties with an interest of record in the property. Statutes of limitations, the court stated, further the policy that one must diligently pursue one’s legal rights at the risk of losing them if they are not timely asserted. Session’s suit, the court stated, was brought more than two years after the tax deed was filed. Thus, the court stated, based on the clear language of the statute, unless some legal principle supersedes the statute, Session cannot prevail. The court rejected Session’s arguments that attempted to get around the statute. OPINION:Morriss, C.J.; Morriss, C.J., and Ross and Carter, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.