Priscilla Beltran Gutierrez v. the City of Laredo ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-14-00270-CV
PRISCILLA BELTRAN GUTIERREZ, APPELLANT
V.
THE CITY OF LAREDO, ET AL, APPELLEES
On Appeal from the 49th District Court
Webb County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2008-TXA-00706-D1, Honorable Joe Lopez, Presiding
August 3, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
This appeal involves a suit for the collection of delinquent taxes on property
located in Laredo, Texas.1 Priscilla Beltran Gutierrez is one of the owners of the
property in question.2 The named taxing authorities all joined in the suit to collect the
delinquent taxes and foreclose their respective tax liens. Ultimately, the issue that is
determinative of this appeal is whether the property described in the judgment for
1
Pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s docket equalization efforts, this case was transferred to
this Court from the Fourth Court of Appeals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013).
2
The other defendants did not appeal the judgment of the trial court.
delinquent taxes, foreclosure of tax lien, and order of sale is adequately described so as
to allow the judgment to stand. We find that the property description is inadequate and
the resulting judgment is void.
Factual and Procedural Background
In July 2008, the city of Laredo (City) filed an original petition seeking a judgment
for delinquent taxes, penalties, interest, attorney’s fees and all cost of suit and to
foreclose its tax lien. The original petition identified the property subject to the taxes by
the following description:
900-90231-0323 ABST 283 P. 23 L SANCHEZ 2.00 ACRES,
City of Laredo, Webb County, Texas
That same month, Laredo Community College (LCC) filed its petition in
intervention joining the lawsuit claiming delinquent taxes. LCC’s petition described the
property in the same manner as the City’s original petition. Later in July, United
Independent School District (United) filed its petition in intervention joining the lawsuit
for delinquent taxes. It also described the property the same way.
The City then filed its first amended petition in April of 2009. The amended
petition is the same in all respects except that it changed the description of the property
at issue. The property was described as:
900-90231-032 ABST 283 POR 23 L SANCHEZ 1.00 ACRE
(HOMESTEAD TRACT), City of Laredo, Webb
County, Texas
3
900-90231-032 is the parcel number assigned to the property by the appraisal district, and all of
the taxing authorities refer to the property by this number.
2
Thus, the City carved a one-acre tract from the original two-acre tract previously
described. United and LCC followed suit; filing amended petitions that altered the
description of the property subject to the taxes.
In November 2009, Webb County filed its petition in intervention to collect
delinquent taxes. Its petition in intervention used the original two-acre description that
the other plaintiffs used in their original pleadings.
In January 2010, the City filed its second amended petition. In this pleading, the
City for the first time described the property of the defendant’s as follows:
900-90231-032 ABST 283 POR 23 L SANCHEZ 1.00 ACRE
(HOMESTEAD TRACT), City of Laredo, Webb
County, Texas
900-90231-270 ABST 283 POR 23 L SANCHEZ 1.00 ACRE, City of
Laredo, Webb County, Texas.
In September 2010, the City filed its third amended petition that described the
land subject to the suit by the 900-90231-032 parcel number as applying to the 1.00-
acre homestead tract. There was no mention in the third amended petition of the 900-
90231-270 tract. There were two more amended petitions filed by the City. Each of
those described the property subject to these proceedings by the 900-90231-032 parcel
number as applying to the 1.00-acre homestead tract.
The LCC filed a second amended petition in December 2011 using the property
description used by the City, that is, the 900-90231-032 parcel number and 1.00-acre
homestead tract designation.
3
Trial commenced on May 19, 2014. After a jury was selected, the various taxing
authorities presented their testimony through their respective tax assessor collectors,
each of whom testified as to the taxes due on parcel number 900-90231-032. During
the questioning of Elizabeth Martinez, the tax assessor for the City, Gutierrez introduced
Defendant’s exhibit 2 (D-2) an aerial photo of parcel number 900-90231-032. The aerial
photo is dated January 27, 2009.4
After Gutierrez rested her case, the taxing authorities moved for a directed
verdict. The trial court granted the motion and entered a judgment accordingly. The
judgment, as of the date of entry, was for a total of $96,722.35. The property described
in the judgment was as follows:
900-90231-032 ABST 283 POR 23 L SANCHEZ 1.00 ACRE
(HOMESTEAD TRACT), TOGETHER WITH ALL
IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, CITY OF LAREDO,
WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS
It is from this judgment that Gutierrez appeals. Gutierrez presents three issues
for our consideration. We will only address the first issue, through which Gutierrez
contends that the judgment does not properly describe the property subject to
foreclosure.
Analysis
Initially, we are directed that, to have a valid conveyance of real property, the
property description must contain a sufficient description of the property sought to be
4
A copy of the aerial photo is attached to this opinion and will be referred to throughout the
opinion. Recognizing that the numbers may be difficult to read, we have emphasized in green the
boundaries of the property identified as parcel 900-90231-032. To be clear, the emphasis is ours and is
strictly for identification purposes so that the reader may more readily identify the parcel referenced
throughout the opinion.
4
conveyed. A property description is sufficient if the writing furnishes within itself, or by
reference to some other existing writing, the means or data by which the particular land
to be conveyed may be identified with reasonable certainty. AIC v. Crews, 246 S.W.3d
640, 645 (Tex. 2007). A judgment for foreclosure of a tax lien which fails to describe a
definite tract of land is void. Id. The description of the property contained in a tax
judgment must be sufficiently specific to allow a party to locate the specific land being
identified. Id. We view judicial proceedings, not with an eye toward defeating them, but
rather with a view to ensuring that their legitimate purpose is accomplished, if we can do
so. See id. However, they remain tied to the requirement that the property described
must be done so with the specificity to allow an individual to locate the conveyed
property with reasonable certainty. Id.
In our case, we have the taxing authorities obtaining a judgment for delinquent
taxes and various penalties, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs on a particularly
described property. That property is a one-acre tract which, according to the record
before us, was part of a larger two-acre tract. Initially, back taxes were sought on the
entire two-acre tract. Subsequently, the taxing authorities amended their respective
pleadings to seek judgment on only the one-acre portion described as the homestead
tract.
At all times throughout these proceedings, the property description has used the
tax appraisal parcel number 900-90231-032. Early on in these proceedings, this
particular parcel number referred to the two-acre tract. However, at some undisclosed
time preceding January 2010, the tax appraisal district created a new parcel number
900-90231-270, which seems to refer to the other, non-homestead, one-acre portion of
5
the original two-acre tract. A review of the legal descriptions attached to each parcel
number reveals that they are identical with the exception that the 032 parcel number
contains the words “homestead tract” whereas the 270 parcel does not.
The record reveals that Gutierrez introduced D-2, the aerial photo of certain
tracts of land in the City of Laredo. Superimposed on this photo are boundary lines for
what appear to be parcel numbers issued by the appraisal district. The photograph is
dated January 27, 2009, with the notation that it is “Aerial Othro Photograph June
2007.” An inspection of D-2 reveals parcel number 900-90231-032 is portrayed in the
photograph. Such examination fails to reveal parcel number 900-90231-270, which
leads to only one conclusion: that the photograph was taken before the appraisal district
created the new 270 parcel number.
This fact is important because the taxing authorities contend that the exhibit
admitted by Gutierrez shows the boundary lines of the property as identified by the
parcel number. If the parcel number corresponded to the one-acre homestead tract, the
taxing authorities would be correct. The problem is that, when the photograph is
viewed, in light of the creation of a second parcel number for the non-homestead tract,
we still do not have any evidence before the trial court about where one of the one-acre
tracts begins and the other ends. We do, apparently, have sufficient information to
locate the two-acre tract on the ground in Laredo, Webb County, Texas; however, we
do not have enough information to locate the specific one-acre tract that is the subject
of the judgment.
6
Because the description of the property subject to foreclosure is insufficient to
ascertain what is being conveyed with reasonable certainty, we hold that the judgment
from which Gutierrez appeals is void. See AIC, 246 S.W.3d at 645.
Having sustained Gutierrez’s first issue, we do not need to address her second
and third issues. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.
Conclusion
Having sustained Gutierrez issue regarding the sufficiency of the description of
the parcel of land involved in these proceedings, we reverse the trial court’s judgment
for delinquent taxes and foreclosure of tax lien and remand this matter to the trial court
for further proceedings.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
7
8