Jay Cohen v. Midtown Management District, Greater Southeast Management District, Harris County, the Harris County Department of Education, the Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, the Harris County Flood Control District, and the Harris County Hospital District

ACCEPTED
01-14-00914-CV
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
10/23/2015 8:19:19 AM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK
CASE NO. 01-14-00914-CV
FILED IN
1st COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS
FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 10/23/2015 8:19:19 AM
TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
JAY COHEN, APPELLANT
v.
MIDTOWN MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, ET AL, APPELLEES
On Appeal from the 133rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas,
Trial Court Case No. 2013-16814
HARRIS COUNTY APPELLEES’ BRIEF
LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR
& SAMPSON, LLP
4828 Loop Central Drive, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77081
(713) 844-3400 main phone
(713) 844-3504 fax
Edward J. (Nick) Nicholas
State Bar No. 14991350
Nick.Nicholas@LGBS.com
Anthony W. (Tony) Nims
State Bar No. 15031500
Anthony.Nims@LGBS.com
ATTORNEYS FOR HARRIS
COUNTY APPELLEES
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
CASE NO. 01-14-00914-CV
JAY COHEN, APPELLANT
v.
MIDTOWN MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, ET AL, APPELLEES
IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES AND COUNSEL
“Appellant” Jay Cohen correctly identified the parties, but for purposes of
clarity, the Appellees (Plaintiffs) will be referred to as the “Midtown Appellees”, the
Appellees (Intervenors) will be referred to as the “Harris County Appellees”, and
both will be referred to collectively as the “Appellees”.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................ iv
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ...................................... 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................ 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................... 4
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................... 7
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ............................................................... 9
I. THE FIRST AND SECOND NUNC PRO TUNC
JUDGMENTS WERE PROPERLY ISSUED ................................ 9
A. THE PURPOSE OF A JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC ... 9
B. THE TRIAL COURT’S INHERENT POWER ................... 10
C. THE TRIAL COURT DETERMINES WHAT
JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED ......................................... 10
D. THE TRIAL COURT DETERMINED THAT
THE JUDGEMENTS ENTERED DID NOT
CORRESPOND TO THE JUDGMENT RENDERED ........ 11
• THE FIRST NUNC PRO TUNC JUDGMENT ................. 11
• THE SECOND NUNC PRO TUNC JUDGMENT ............ 13
II. APPELLANT’S ISSUES HAVE NO MERIT ............................... 15
A. ISSUE NO. 1. APPELLANT’S ISSUE NO. 1 HAS
NO MERIT BECAUSE THE FIRST AND SECOND
NUNC PRO TUNC JUDGMENTS ARE BASED ON
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ................................................... 16
ii
B. ISSUE NO. 2. APPELLANT’S ISSUE NO. 2 HAS
NO MERIT BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON A FALSE
PREMISES, I.E. THAT THE FINAL JUDGMENT
DID NOT AWARD HISD A JUDGMENT AGAINST
APPELLANT ........................................................................ 18
C. ISSUE NO. 3. APPELLANT’S ISSUE NO. 3 HAS
NO MERIT FOR THE SAME REASON, AND
BECAUSE HCCS WAS A NAMED PLAINTIFF
TAXING UNIT WHO WAS AWARDED A
JUDGMENT AGAINST APPELLANT ................................ 19
III. APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE ANY
REVERSIBLE ERROR OCCURRED, OR THAT THE
TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION ............................. 20
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF .............................................. 22
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................... 23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................... 23
APPENDIX ...................................................................................................... 24
Tab 1: Harris County’s Original Intervention (SCR2 at 3-6)
Tab 1A: Original Intervention Exhibit A – Harris County Appellees’
Certified Tax Records (SCR2 at 7-15)
Tab 2: Transcript of November 15, 2013 Final Trial
(RR Vol. 1, p. 1-7)
Tab 2A: Trial Exhibit A – Harris County Appellees’ Certified Tax
Records (RR Vol. 2)
iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page
America’s Favorite Chicken Co. v. Galvan, 897 S.W.2d 874, 877
(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1995, writ denied) .......................................... 11
Andrews v. Koch, 702 S.W.2d 584, 585 (Tex. 1986) ....................................... 9
Barton v. Gillespie, 178 S.W.3d 121, 127 (Tex.App.-Houston
[1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) .......................................................................... 17
Batson v. Bentley, 4 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1928,
no pet.)..................................................................................................... 12
Burgess v. Burgess, 834 S.W.2d 538, 540 (Tex.App.-Houston
[1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) .................................................................... 10, 15
Carlyle Real Estate Ltd. P’ship-X v. Leibman, 782 S.W.2d 230, 233
(Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ.) ........................................ 12
Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838-39 (Tex.2004) ................................. 21
Claxton v. (Upper) Lake Fork Water Control and Imp. Dist. No. 1,
220 S.W.3d 537, 545 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006, pet. denied) ...... 16, 17
Coleman v. Zapp, 151 S.W. 1040, 1041 (Tex. 1912) ...................................... 10
Davis v. City of Austin, 632 S.W.2d 331, 333 (Tex. 1982) ............................... 14
Escobar v. Escobar, 711 S.W.2d 230, 231 (Tex. 1986) ............................... 9, 11
Ex parte Hogan, 916 S.W.2d 82, 85 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
1996, orig. proceeding) .......................................................................... 11
Ferguson v. Naylor, 860 S.W.2d 123 127 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1993,
writ denied) ............................................................................................ 10
iv
Fiske v. Fiske, No. 01-03-00048-CV, 2004 WL 1847368, at *5
(Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 19, 2004, no pet.) (mem.op.) ........ 15
Ft. Worth & D.C. Ry. Co. v. Roberts, 81 S.W. 25, 26 (Tex. 1904) ................. 17
Hernandez v. Lopez, 288 S.W.3d 180, 189-90 (Tex.App-Houston
[1st Dist.] 2009, no pet) ................................................................. 9, 11, 20
In re Barber, 982 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Tex. 1998) .............................................. 21
LaGoye v. Victoria Wood Condominium Ass’n, 112 S.W.3d 777, 783
(Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) ....................................... 9
Operation Rescue-National v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and
Southeast Texas, Inc., 937 S.W.2d 60, 86 (Tex.App.-Houston
[14th Dist.] 1996, aff’d as modified on other grounds, 975 S.W.2d
546 (Tex. 1998)) .................................................................................... 17
Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580, 602 (Tex. 2008) ................................. 21
Pruet v. Coastal States Trading, Inc., 715 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex.App.
-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no writ) ................................................... 13, 17
Randle v. Randle, No. 01-96-00459-CV, 1997 WL 7026, at *2
(Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.) (op. per curiam) ....... 10, 11
Riner v. Briargrove Park Prop. Owners, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 680, 683
(Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no writ) .................................... 13, 16
Sederholm v. Neville, No. 01-12-00215-CV, 2014 WL 2625633, at *3
(Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Jun 12, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) ........ 20
Shelby v. Shelby, 517 S.W.2d 696, 697-98 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
1974, writ ref’d n.r.e.) ............................................................................ 10
SLT Dealer Group, Ltd. v. AmeriCredit Fin. Services, Inc., 336 S.W.3d
822, 832-33 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) .................... 15
v
Thompson v. Tex. Dept. of Human Resources, 859 S.W.2d 482, 484
(Tex.App.-San Antonio 1993, no writ) .................................................. 11
Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92, 97 (Tex. 2009) .................... 21
Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Ferguson, 471 S.W.2d 28, 29-30
(Tex. 1971) ............................................................................................. 10
Wedgeworth v. Pope, 12 S.W.2d 1045, 1047 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth
1928, writ ref’d) ..................................................................................... 15
Wood v. Paulus, 524 S.W.2d 749, 755 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi
1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.) ............................................................................ 17
Zamora v. Salinas, 422 S.W.2d 249, 251 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1967,
writ ref’d n.r.e.) ...................................................................................... 14
Statutes, Regulations & Rules Page
TEX. PROP. TAX. CODE § 33.47 ......................................................... 5, 14, 15, 21
TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1) ................................................................................... 23
TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d) ...................................................................................... 2
TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g) ..................................................................................... 4
TEX. R. APP. P. 39 ............................................................................................. 1
TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1 .......................................................................................... 20
vi
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
The Harris County Appellees request oral argument and believe that the
customary time limits should apply. Rule 39, TEX. R. APP. P.
1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Harris County Appellees object to Appellant’s Statement of the Case in
its entirety because it contains argument, is not supported by record references, and
discusses alleged and contested facts. (Brief at 8-9). Rule 38.1(d), TEX.R.APP.P. As
a result, the Harris County Appellees offer the following Statement of the Case in
the alternative:
Harris County Appellees’ Statement of the Case
On March 21, 2013, the Midtown Appellees filed their Original Petition
against Appellant. (CR at 4-8, “Petition”)1. The Petition sought to recover property
taxes allegedly owed by the Appellant. (Id.). On June 3, 2013, Appellant filed his
Original Answer and asserted a general denial. (CR at 9). On July 26, 2013, the
Harris County Appellees filed their Original Intervention (“Intervention”). (SCR2 at
3-6, Appellee’s App. Tab 1). Delinquent Tax Statement Summaries for Appellant’s
Real Property2 were attached to, and incorporated in, the Intervention. (SCR2 at 3-
6 and 7-15, Appellee’s App. Tabs 1 and 1A) (“Delinquent Tax Records”).
1
Citations made herein are to the Original Clerk’s Record (“CR”), the First Supplemental
Clerk’s Record (“SCR1”), the Second Supplemental Clerk’s Record (“SCR2”), Volumes 1 and 2
of the Reporter’s Record (“RR Vol. 1” and “RR Vol. 2”, respectively), Appellant’s Appendix
(“Appellant’s App. Tab #”), and Appellees’ Appendix (“Appellee’s App. Tab #”).
2
“Real Property” means and includes the real property identified by Harris County Tax
Assessor-Collector Account No: (1) 002-146-000-0008 (SCR2 at 7, “Tract 1”), (2) 019-190-000-
0006 (SCR2 at 9-10, “Tract 2”)), (3) 061-168-034-0003 (SCR2 at 11, “Tract 3”), (4) 019-268-000-
0010 (SCR2 at 12-13. “Tract 4”), and (5) 019-203-001-0009 (SCR2 at 14-15. “Tract 5”),
(Appellees’ App. Tab 1A).
2
The case was tried in the 133rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas
(“Trial Court”) on November 15, 2013. (RR Vol. 1, p. 1-7 and RR Vol. 2, p. 1,
Appellees’ App. Tabs 2 and 2A). On that same day the Trial Court orally rendered
Judgment for the Plaintiffs, and then entered a written Final Judgment which
awarded Judgment to the “Plaintiff Taxing Units whether Plaintiff(s), Intervenor(s)
or Impleaded Plaintiff(s).” (RR Vol. 1, p. 5, l. 24, Appellees’ App. Tab 2; SCR2 at
25-58, Appellant’s App. Tab 1).
Thereafter, on July 25, 2014 and May 21, 2015, the Trial Court issued Orders
for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc, and the First and Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgments.
(SCR2 at 22-91, Appellant’s App. Tab 2 3 and Order; and 98-107, Appellant’s App.
Tab 3 4 and Order, respectively).
Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on November 17, 2014. (CR at 117-19).
3
Appellant refers to this document as the “Revised Second Order of Final Judgment”, but
the document is titled “Nunc Pro Tunc Final Judgment”. (Appellant’s App. Tab 2). Therefore
Appellees refer to this document as the “First Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment.”
4
Appellant refers to this document as the “Revised Third Order of Final Judgment”, but
the document is titled “Nunc Pro Tunc Final Judgment”. (Appellant’s App. Tab 3). Therefore
Appellees refer to this document as the “Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment.”
3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Harris County Appellees object to Appellant’s Statement of Facts
because it is incomplete. Rule 38.1(g), TEX.R.APP.P. Therefore, the Harris County
Appellees offer the following facts as a clarification of, or supplement to,
Appellant’s Statement of Facts.
On July 26, 2013, the Harris County Appellees filed their Intervention. (SCR2
at 3-6 and 7-15, Appellees’ App. Tabs 1 and 1A). The Intervention named the Harris
County Appellees, including Houston Independent School District (“HISD”) and
Houston Community College System (“HCCS”), as the Intervenors. (SCR2 at 3, ¶
I, Appellees’ App. Tab 1). Delinquent Tax Records were attached to the Intervention
as Exhibit A, and the Intervention states they are “attached hereto and made a part
hereof by reference for all purposes.” (SCR2 at 3-6 and 7-15, Appellees’ App. Tabs
1 and 1A; SCR2 at 4, ¶ III, Appellees’ App. Tab 2). The Delinquent Tax Records
list the taxing units which are owed taxes, penalties and interest, and HISD (Tax
Unit Code #1) and HCCS (Tax Unit Code #48) are included in the list. (SCR2 at 7-
15, Appellees’ App. Tab 1A).
The case was called to trial on November 15, 2013 but Appellant failed to
appear. (RR Vol. 1, p. 1; RR Vol. 1, p. 4, l. 14-25, Appellees’ App. Tab 2).
Thereafter, the Midtown Appellees, and then the Harris County Appellees,
introduced Delinquent Tax Records into evidence. (RR Vol. 1, p. 5, l. 2-11,
4
Appellees’ App. Tab 2 and RR Vol. 2, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits A and B; RR Vol. 1, p. 5,
l. 13-23 and RR Vol. 2, Harris County Exhibits A and B, Appellees’ App. Tabs 2
and 2A).
Pursuant to § 33.47 of TEX. PROP. TAX CODE, the Midtown Appellees Exhibit
A was prima facie proof that Appellant owed them taxes, penalties and interest. (RR
Vol. 2, Plaintiff’s Exhibit B). Likewise, the Harris County Appellees’ Exhibit A
proved that Appellant owed them - including HISD and HCCS - taxes, penalties and
interest. (RR Vol. 2, Harris County Exhibit A, Appellees’ App. Tab 2A).
Furthermore, the amounts identified as being owed to HCCS (Tax Unit Code #48)
in Exhibit A, match the amounts listed as being owed to HCCS in the Second Nunc
Pro Tunc Judgment. (SCR2 at 100-101, Appellant’s App. Tab 3).5
After Appellees presented their prima facie cases, the Trial Court orally
rendered judgment for the Appellees, and then issued its written Final Judgment.
(RR Vol. 1, p. 5, l. 24, Appellees’ App. Tab 2; SCR2 at 25-58, Appellant’s App. Tab
1). The Final Judgment identified both HCCS as an Intervenor, and HISD as a taxing
unit. (SCR2 at 25, and 27-28, Appellant’s App. Tab 1).
Thereafter the Trial Court issued an Order finding that the Final Judgment did
not match the Judgment rendered because the Final Judgment shows that Appellant
5
See Harris County Appellees’ Exhibit A (RR Vol. 2, Exhibit A, Appellees’ App. Tab 2A),
and the Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment (SCR2 at 100-101, Appellant’s App. Tab 3).
5
owed taxes, penalties and interest to HISD, but HISD was not listed as a Plaintiff on
the first page of the Final Judgment. (SCR2 at 91, Appellant’s App. Tab 2) 6 As a
result, the Trial Court issued its First Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment which identified all
of the Harris County Appellees, including HISD and HCCS, on the first page. (SCR2
at 82, Appellant’s App. Tab 2).
Subsequent thereto, the Midtown Appellees filed a Motion for Second
Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc because, although: (i) HCCS was identified as a Plaintiff
Taxing Unit, (ii) the Final Judgment awarded HCCS relief, and (iii) the Delinquent
Tax Records prove that Appellant owed taxes, penalties and interest to HCCS,
HCCS was not listed in the Recovery Chart. 7 (SCR2 at 94-97). As a result, the Trial
Court found that the Final Judgment and the First Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment did not
match the Judgment rendered, and issued the Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment
(SCR2 at 107; and 98-106, Appellant’s App. Tab 3).
Then, on November 17, 2014, Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal. (CR at
117-19).
6
See also Greater Southeast Management District’s Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc.
(HISD “is not included on the first page of the judgment with the other tax units … [but] Houston
ISD is included in the table showing the amounts recovered.” (SCR2 at 67-68, ¶ I).
7
“Recovery Chart” refers to the charts on pages 3-4 of the Final Judgment, the First Nunc
Pro Tunc Judgment, and the Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment, which identify - for each Tract -
the taxing jurisdictions that are owed taxes, penalties and interest, and the amounts they are owed.
(SCR2 at 27-28, 84-85 and 100-101, Appellant’s App. Tabs 1, 2 and 3, respectively).
6
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The First and Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgments were properly issued because
the Trial Court had the inherent power to do so, and because the Trial Court factually
determined that the Judgements entered did not correspond to the Judgment rendered
because: (i) even though HISD was included in the Final Judgment (i.e., the
Judgment showed that taxes were due to HISD), HISD’s name was not typed-out on
page 1, and (ii) even though the Judgment awarded the amounts listed on the
Delinquent Tax Records, the specific amounts were not listed in the Recovery Chart.
Moreover, Appellant’s Issues Nos. 1 through 3 have no merit. Appellant’s
Issue No. 1 has no merit because a Trial Judge is free to consider written documents,
previous judgments and/or his personal recollection when granting a judgment nunc
pro tunc, and the First and Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgments are based on sufficient
evidence.
Appellant’s Issue No. 2 has no merit because it is based on a false premise,
i.e. that HISD was not awarded a Judgment against Appellant in the Final Judgment.
To the contrary, the Plaintiff Taxing Units, which included the Intervenors, were
granted a judgment against Appellant, and Houston ISD is specifically awarded
taxes, penalties and interest in the Recovery Chart.
For the same reasons, Appellants’ Issue No. 3 has no merit as to HISD.
Furthermore, because; (i) the Intervention sought to recover a monetary judgment
7
for the Harris County Appellees, including HISD and HCCS and others, (ii) the
Intervention was supported by Delinquent Tax Records that prove Appellant owes
taxes, penalties and interest to HISD and HCCS (iii) the Delinquent Tax Records
were admitted into evidence at trial, and (iv) HCCS was always listed as a Plaintiff
Taxing Unit, Appellant’s Issue No. 3 has no merit as to HCCS.
Finally, Appellant failed to prove that any reversible error occurred, or that
the Trial Court abused its discretion.
Therefore, the Trial Court’s Final Judgement, First Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment
and Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment should be affirmed in their entirety.
8
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
I. THE FIRST AND SECOND NUNC PRO TUNC JUDGMENTS WERE
PROPERLY ISSUED.
The First and Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgments were properly issued because
the Trial Court had the inherent power to do so, and because the Trial Court factually
determined that the Judgements entered did not correspond to the Judgment rendered
because: (i) even though HISD was included in the Final Judgment, (e.g. the
Judgment showed that taxes were due to HISD), HISD’s name was not typed-out on
page 1, and (ii) even though HCCS was named on page 1, the evidence proved HCCS
was owed money, and the Judgment awarded the amounts listed in the Delinquent
Tax Records, HCCS was not included in the Recovery Chart. As a result, the Trial
Court properly issued nunc pro tunc judgments to correct these clerical errors.
A. THE PURPOSE OF A JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC
“The purpose of a judgment nunc pro tunc is to correct a clerical error in a
judgment after the court’s plenary power has expired. Hernandez v. Lopez, 288
S.W.3d 180, 189-90 (Tex.App-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet); LaGoye v. Victoria
Wood Condominium Ass’n, 112 S.W.3d 777, 783 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.]
2003, no pet.), citing Escobar v. Escobar, 711 S.W.2d 230, 231 (Tex. 1986). A
clerical error is a “mistake or omission” in the judgment entered compared to the
judgment rendered. Id., citing Andrews v. Koch, 702 S.W.2d 584, 585 (Tex. 1986);
9
Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Ferguson, 471 S.W.2d 28, 29-30 (Tex. 1971). It
occurs if there is a mistake when the judgment is reduced to writing. Burgess v.
Burgess, 834 S.W.2d 538, 540 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.) (“A
clerical error is a mistake occurring in the reduction of the judgment to writing…”).
B. THE TRIAL COURT’S INHERENT POWER
A trial court has the inherent power to issue nunc pro tunc judgments.
Coleman v. Zapp, 151 S.W. 1040, 1041 (Tex. 1912):
Hence it is that from the earliest times the power of correcting or
amending their records, by nunc pro tunc entry, so as to faithfully recite
their action, has been possessed and exercised by the courts as an
inherent right, independent of any statute, and in the absences of
express provision, unaffected by limitation.
See also, Shelby v. Shelby, 517 S.W.2d 696, 697-98 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
1974, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Furthermore, a trial court’s use of that power will not be
disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Ferguson v. Naylor, 860 S.W.2d 123
127 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1993, writ denied).
C. THE TRIAL COURT DETERMINES WHAT JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED
“The question of what judgment the trial court actually rendered is initially a
question of fact for the trial court.” Randle v. Randle, No. 01-96-00459-CV, 1997
WL 7026, at *2 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.) (op. per curiam), citing
10
Escobar, 711 S.W.2d at 232; America’s Favorite Chicken Co. v. Galvan, 897
S.W.2d 874, 877 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1995, writ denied); Thompson v. Tex. Dept.
of Human Resources, 859 S.W.2d 482, 484 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1993, no writ).
Thereafter, an appellate court may only review the trial court’s factual determination
for no evidence and factual insufficiency of the evidence, and cannot substitute its
judgment for the judgment of the trial court. Randle, 1997 WL 7026, at *2, Escobar,
711 S.W.2d at 232; Thompson, 859 S.W.2d at 484-85.
D. THE TRIAL COURT DETERMINED THAT THE JUDGEMENTS ENTERED DID
NOT CORRESPOND TO THE JUDGMENTS RENDERED
For both the First and Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgments, the Trial Court
determined that the Judgment entered did not correspond to the Judgment rendered.
(i) THE FIRST NUNC PRO TUNC JUDGMENT
For the First Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment, the Trial Court found:
that the Judgment entered does not correspond to the Judgment as
rendered because of the follow errors Plaintiff lef. (sic) off the first
page. Specifically HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT show tax amounts due in the judgment, but is not listed as
a Plaintiff in the suit
(SCR2 at 91, Appellant’s App. Tab 2). Obvious typographical errors are clerical
errors. Hernandez, 288 S.W.3d at 190, citing Ex parte Hogan, 916 S.W.2d 82, 85
(Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, orig. proceeding). Moreover, a judgment non
11
pro tunc is proper to add the name of a defendant omitted from the original judgment,
or to correct a party’s name. Batson v. Bentley, 4 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Civ.App.-
Amarillo 1928, no pet.) (Contract and pleadings authorized trial court to enter
judgment nunc pro tunc adding the name of an omitted defendant); Carlyle Real
Estate Ltd. P’ship-X v. Leibman, 782 S.W.2d 230, 233 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
1989, no writ) (“We hold that the trial court did not err in rendering the judgment
nunc pro tunc to accurately reflect the legal name of the party against whom the
judgment was rendered.”).
Here, however: (i) HISD was already incorporated 8, by reference as a Plaintiff
Taxing Unit on page 1 of the Final Judgment, and (ii) Houston ISD was already
listed in the Final Judgment’s Recovery Chart. (SCR2 at 25 and 27-28, Appellant’s
App. Tab 1). Therefore, HISD was not being added to the Final Judgment, but
instead, the change was that:
“HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (HOUSTON ISD)”
was typed-out on page 1 of the First Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment. (SCR2 at 82,
Appellant’s App. Tab 2). Clearly this is the correction of an obvious typographical
error, and thus properly changed via a nunc pro tunc judgment.
8
Page 1 of the Final Judgment incorporates the Intervenors into the definition of “Plaintiff
Taxing Units(s)”, and HISD is a named Intervenor in the Original Intervention. (SCR2 at 25,
Appellant’s App. Tax 1) and (SCR2 at 3. Appellees’ App. Tab 1).
12
(ii) THE SECOND NUNC PRO TUNC JUDGMENT
For the Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment, the Trial Court found:
that the Judgment entered does not correspond to the Judgment as
rendered because of the following errors HOUSTON COMMUNITY
COLLEGE SYSTEM is not included in the figure blocks for Tract 1
through Tract 5 even though the Delinquent Tax statements show the
amounts owed
(SCR2 at 107, Appellant’s App. Tab 3). This finding is specifically based upon his
recollection that: (i) “the Delinquent Tax statements show the amounts owed” to
HCCS, and (ii) those amounts were included in the Judgement he rendered. (Id.).
Evidence that a clerical error was made may come from a number of sources,
including written documents and the trial judge’s personal recollection. Claxton v.
(Upper) Lake Fork Water Control and Imp. Dist. No. 1, 220 S.W.3d 537, 545
(Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006, pet. denied), citing Riner v. Briargrove Park Prop.
Owners, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 680, 683 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no writ).
Furthermore, the trial judge’s recollection, and/or recitations alone, may provide
sufficient evidence that a clerical error occurred and that the nunc pro tunc judgment
correctly reflects the judgment rendered. Claxton, 220 S.W.3d at 545, citing Pruet
v. Coastal States Trading, Inc., 715 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
1986, no writ); Barton v. Gillespie, 178 S.W.3d 121, 127 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st
Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (“Because the trial court relied on its personal recollection, we
13
will presume the trial court’s recollection supports the finding that the error was
clerical …”).
In this case, the Delinquent Tax Records are prima facie proof9 that Appellant
owed HCCS taxes, penalties and interest on Tracts 1 through 5 10. Moreover, the
Trial Court clearly rendered his Judgment based on the Delinquent Tax Records:
Ms. Hernandez On behalf of the Intervenors, I’m offering into
evidence 1, 2, 3 – 5 certified tax statements
marked as Harris County Exhibit A and one
document marked as Harris County Exhibit B.
We seek to recoup all past due taxes, penalties,
interest, and delinquent city liens.
***
The Court: They are admitted.
***
The Court: Judgment for Plaintiffs. 11
(RR Vol. 1, p. 5, l. 13-24, RR Vol. 2, Harris County Exhibits A and B, Appellees’
App. Tabs 2 and 2A). However, although the amounts owed to all other Harris
9
The Tax Code provides that Delinquent Tax Records constitute prima facie evidence “that
the amount of tax alleged to be delinquent against the property and the amount of penalties and
interest due on that tax as listed are the correct amounts.” Section. 33.47(a), TEX. PROP. TAX. CODE.
Further, the Texas Supreme Court has held that Delinquent Tax Records, by themselves, are prima
facie evidence of every fact necessary for a taxing jurisdiction to prevail. Davis v. City of Austin,
632 S.W.2d 331, 333 (Tex. 1982) (“Under these principles, the taxing authority established its
prima facie case as to every material fact necessary to establish the cause of action when it
introduced a copy of the delinquent tax record, certified by the proper taxing authority to be true
and correct with the amount stated thereon to be unpaid.”).
10
(RR Vol. 2, Harris County Exhibit A: Tract 1 – 0008 Acct., p. 1-2 of 3; Tract 2 – 0006
Acct, p. 1-3 of 4, Tract 3 – 0003 Acct, p. 1-2 of 3, Tract 4 – 0010 Acct, p. 1-3 of 4 and Tract 5 –
0009 Acct, p. 1-3 of 4).
11
Based upon the definition of Plaintiff Taxing Units, “Plaintiffs” impliedly include the
Intervenors HISD and HCCS. Zamora v. Salinas, 422 S.W.2d 249, 251 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi
1967, writ ref’d n.r.e.) Findings “which may properly be implied in support of it are legally and
factually sufficient” to justify the nunc pro tunc judgment.
14
County Appellees were transcribed from the Delinquent Tax Records to the Final
Judgment, the amounts owed to HCCS were not transcribed.
Therefore, because: (i) the Judgment rendered included an award of the
amounts reflected in the Delinquent Tax Records, (ii) the Delinquent Tax Records
prove that Appellant owes taxes, penalties and interest to HCCS 12, and (iii) the
Judgment entered did not contain those amounts due to a transcription error, the error
is a clerical error which may be corrected via a nunc pro tunc judgment. 13 Burgess
834 S.W.2d at 540. (“In this case, the error arose from the writing failing to properly
reflect the judgment as rendered, meaning it was a clerical error.”).
II. APPELLANT’S ISSUES HAVE NO MERIT
As demonstrated in Section I above, the Trial Court properly issued its First
and Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgments. Nevertheless, Appellant seeks to have one
or both of the nunc pro tunc judgments reversed. However, Appellant’s Issues have
no merit, and therefore all of the Trial Court’s judgments should be affirmed.
12
As a result, and pursuant to § 33.47, TEX. PROP. TAX CODE, no judicial reasoning or
determination is required to calculate the amount of taxes, penalties and interest that is owed.
13
Transcription errors involving monetary amounts are clerical errors which can be corrected
via a nunc pro tunc judgment. SLT Dealer Group, Ltd. v. AmeriCredit Fin. Services, Inc., 336
S.W.3d 822, 832-33 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.), citing Fiske v. Fiske, No. 01-
03-00048-CV, 2004 WL 1847368, at *5 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 19, 2004, no pet.)
(mem.op.); Scott v. Scott, 408 S.W.2d 135, 137 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1966, writ dism’d);
Wedgeworth v. Pope, 12 S.W.2d 1045, 1047 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1928, writ ref’d).
15
A. APPELLANT’S ISSUE NO. 1 HAS NO MERIT BECAUSE THE
FIRST AND SECOND NUNC PRO TUNC JUDGMENTS ARE
BASED ON SUFFICENT EVIDENCE.
Appellant’s Issue No. 1 asserts that the Delinquent Tax Records cannot be
used to support the First and Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgments because they were
not attached to, or referenced in, the Final Judgment:
[T]he trial exhibits that Appellees attached to the form of judgment
presented to, and signed by, the trial court … cannot be used, as argued
by Appellees, to create a ‘clerical’ error that would permit the trial court
to enter nunc pro tunc judgments.”
(Brief at 13-14). However, evidence supporting a nunc pro tunc judgment “may
come from a number of sources, including oral testimony, written documents,
previous judgments, docket entries, or the trial judge’s personal recollection.”
Claxton, 220 S.W.3d at 545, citing Riner, 976 S.W.2d at 683.
Here, for the First Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment, the Trial Judge found that the
Judgment entered did not match the Judgment he rendered, because HISD was left
off the first page, but the Final Judgment “show[s] tax amounts due” to HISD. (SCR2
at 91, Appellant’s App. Tab 2). Accordingly, his finding is based upon a written
document/previous judgment (i.e., the “Final Judgment”), and his personal
recollection of what the Final Judgment shows, and what judgment he rendered.
Moreover, for the Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment, the Trial Judge
specifically found that the Judgment entered did not match the Judgment he rendered
because: (i) HCCS was not listed in the Recovery Chart, (ii) even though the
16
Delinquent Tax Records, which Appellant’s admits was attached to the proposed
judgment 14, “show the amounts owed.” (Brief at 13-14; SCR2 at 107, Appellant’s
App. Tab 3). Accordingly, his finding is based upon written documents (i.e., the
Delinquent Tax Records and the proposed judgment), and his personal recollection
of what the Delinquent Tax Records show, and what judgment he rendered.
A “trial judge’s recollection of facts has the dignity and force of evidence.”
Claxton, 220 S.W.3d at 545, citing Ft. Worth & D.C. Ry. Co. v. Roberts, 81 S.W.
25, 26 (Tex. 1904) and Wood v. Paulus, 524 S.W.2d 749, 755 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus
Christi 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Further, if the Trial Judge relies on his personal
recollection, “a presumption arises that his personal recollections supports the
finding of clerical error.” Claxton, 220 S.W.3d at 545, citing Pruet, 715 S.W.2d at
704; Barton, 178 S.W.3d at 127.
Accordingly, Appellant’s Issue No. 1 has no merit because the First and
Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgments were supported by sufficient evidence; and
therefore this Court should affirm the Final Judgment, the First Nunc Pro Tunc
Judgment, and the Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment.
14
Even the inadvertent failure to attach an exhibit to a judgement is a clerical error that can
be cured by a nunc pro tunc judgment. Operation Rescue-National v. Planned Parenthood of
Houston and Southeast Texas, Inc., 937 S.W.2d 60, 86 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, aff’d
as modified on other grounds, 975 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1998)) (“Failure to attach the exhibits to the
judgment is a clerical error, not a judicial error. Therefore, the trial court could properly enter a
judgment nunc pro tunc after expiration of its plenary power.”).
17
B. APPELLANT’S ISSUE NO. 2 HAS NO MERIT BECAUSE IT IS
BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE, I.E., THAT THE FINAL
JUDGMENT DID NOT AWARD HISD A JUDGMENT AGAINST
APPELLANT.
Appellant’s Issue No. 2 is based on the false premise that the Final Judgment
did not award HISD a judgment against Appellant. (Brief at 4, Issue No. 2) (“In this
revised final order, HISD was awarded judgment against Mr. Cohen, which had been
denied in the first final order.”). But the Final Judgment awarded a judgment against
Mr. Cohen and in favor of the Plaintiff Taxing Units. (SCR2 at 25-26, Appellant’s
App. Tab 1) (“IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff Taxing Unit(s) recover of and from
the Defendant(s)15, as indicated above, the total sum or money set out below…”).
Moreover, Plaintiff Taxing Units was defined to include the Intervenors, and HISD
was listed as an Intervenor in the Intervention. (SCR2 at 25, Appellant’s App. Tab
1; SCR2 at 3-15, Appellees’ App. Tab 1). Furthermore, Houston ISD was included
in the Final Judgment’s Recovery Chart setting forth which taxing units would
recover from Appellant, and the amount each would recover. (SCR2 at 27-28,
Appellant’s App. Tab 1). In addition, the Trial Judge’s decision to grant the First
Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment was based on his finding that the Final Judgment shows
that tax amounts were due to HISD. (SCR2 at 91, Appellant’s App. Tab 2).
Accordingly, Appellant’s Issue No. 2 has no merit because it is based on a false
15
Appellant was the only identified Defendant. (SCR2 at 25, Appellant’s App. Tab 1).
18
premise; and therefore this Court should affirm the Final Judgment, the First Nunc
Pro Tunc Judgment, and the Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment.
C. APPELLANT’S ISSUE NO. 3 HAS NO MERIT FOR THE SAME
REASON, AND BECAUSE HCCS WAS A NAMED PLAINTIFF
TAXING UNIT WHO WAS AWARDED A JDUGMENT AGAINST
APPELLANT.
Appellant’s Issue No. 3 begins by re-asserting the same false premise that
HISD was not awarded a judgment against Appellant in the Final Judgment. As a
result, the Harris County Appellees herby and herein incorporate its response to
Appellant’s Issue No. 2.
Appellant then falsely asserts that HCCS was not included in the Final
Judgment or the First Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment. To the contrary, HCCS was listed
as a Plaintiff Taxing Unit on both. (SCR2 at 25 and 82, Appellant’s App. Tabs 2 and
3). Additionally, HCCS was a named Intervenor. (SCR2 at 3, Appellees’ App. Tab
1). Furthermore, both the Delinquent Tax Records attached to the Intervention, and
the Delinquent Tax Records introduced at trial, identified HCCS as a Taxing Unit
(Code #48), and specified the amounts of taxes, penalties and interest that Appellant
owed HCCS. (SCR2 at 7-15, Appellees’ App. Tab 1A; RR Vol. 1, p. 5, l. 13-23,
Appellees’ App. Tab 2; and RR Vol. 2, Harris County Exhibits A and B, Appellees’
App. Tab 2A). Therefore the Trial Court granted the Second Nunc Pro Tunc
Judgment because HCCS was “not included on the figure blocks for Tract 1 through
19
5 even though the Delinquent Tax statements show the amounts owed…” (CR at
107, Appellant’s App. Tab 3).
As a result, the Trial Court did not err when it granted the Second Nunc Pro
Tunc Judgment based upon the language in the First Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment (i.e.
the Recovery Chart) and the Delinquent Tax Records. Sederholm v. Neville, No. 01-
12-00215-CV, 2014 WL 2625633, at *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Jun 12, 2014,
no pet.) (mem. op.) (A Trial Court’s decision to grant a Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc
can be based on evidence “from oral testimony of witnesses, written documents,
previous judgments, docket entries, or the trial judge’s personal recollection.”),
citing Hernandez, 288 S.W.3d at 185. Accordingly, Appellant’s Issue No. 3 has no
merit because it is based on false premises, and because HCCS was a named Plaintiff
Taxing Unit who was awarded a judgment against Appellant. Therefore this Court
should affirm the Final Judgment, the First Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment, and the
Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment.
III. APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE ANY REVERSIBLE ERROR
OCCURRED, OR THAT THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION.
Pursuant to Rule 44.1, TEX. R. APP. P., no judgment may be reversed on appeal
unless “the error complained of: (1) probably caused the rendition of an improper
judgment; or (2) probably prevented the appellant from properly presenting the case
20
to the court of appeals.” First, Appellant does not contend that any alleged error
prevented him from properly presenting his case to this Court. Second, although
Appellant does assert that the Trial Court erred in issuing the Final Judgment, First
Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment and Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment, the Appellant failed
to prove there was any error because the Appellees presented prima facie cases at
trial, and the First and Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgments were properly issued.
Furthermore, Appellant failed to show that the Trial Court abused its
discretion. The test for an abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted without
reference to any guiding rules or principles, or arbitrarily or unreasonably. Perry
Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580, 602 (Tex. 2008), citing, Cire v. Cummings, 134
S.W.3d 835, 838-39 (Tex.2004). However, “[a] trial court does not abuse its
discretion if it bases it decision on conflicting evidence and some evidence supports
its decision.” In re Barber, 982 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Tex. LaG1998), Unifund CCR
Partners v. Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92, 97 (Tex.2009). In this case, the Trial Court acted
in accordance with guiding rules and principles (i.e. Section 33.47, TEX. PROP. TAX
CODE); and there is at least some evidence to support the Trial Court’s Final
Judgment, First Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment and Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment (the
Delinquent Tax Records, the previous judgments and his personal recollection).
21
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Trial Court did not err when it issued its Final Judgment, its First Nunc
Pro Tunc Judgment, or its Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgment. Moreover, Appellant’s
Issues are entirely without merit, and Appellant has failed to prove that any
reversible error occurred, or that the Trial Court abused its discretion. Therefore,
the Trial Court's Final Judgment, and First and Second Nunc Pro Tunc Judgments,
should be affirmed in their entirety.
Respectfully submitted,
LINEBARGER GOGGAN
BLAIR & SAMPSON, LLP
Edward J. (Nick) Nicholas
State Bar No. 14991350
4828 Loop Central Drive, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77081
(713) 844-3405 direct phone
(713) 844-3400 main phone
(713) 8454-3504 fax
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
22
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this document was produced on a computer using Microsoft
Word 2013 and contains 4,549 words, as determined by the computer software’s
word-count function, excluding the sections of the document listed in Rule 9.4(i)(1),
TEX. R. APP. P.
Edward J. (Nick) Nicholas
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the Brief of Appellant was served on the following
counsel of record via electronic mail to Mr. George F. May at
george@twomeymay.com, and to Mr. Greg East at geast@pbfcm.com.
Edward J. (Nick) Nicholas
23
CASE NO. 01-14-00914-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
JAY COHEN, APPELLANT
v.
MIDTOWN MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, ET AL, APPELLEES
On Appeal from the 133rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas,
Trial Court Case No. 2013-16814
APPELLEES’ APPENDIX
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
1. Harris County’s Original Intervention (SCR2 at 3-6) Tab 1
2. Original Intervention Exhibit A – Harris County Appellees’ Tab 1A
Certified Tax Records (SCR2 at 7-15)
3. Transcript of November 15, 2013 Final Trial – (RR Vol. 1, p. Tab 2
1-7)
4. Trial Exhibit A – Harris County Appellees’ Certified Tax Tab 2A
Records (RR Vol. 2)
Exhibit 1
3
4
5
6
Exhibit 1A
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Exhibit 2
FINAL TRIAL
1
1 REPORTER'S RECORD
VOLUME 1 OF 2 VOLUMES
2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2013-16814 FILED IN
APPELLATE CAUSE NO. 01-14-00914-CV1st COURT OF APPEALS
3 HOUSTON, TEXAS
MIDTOWN MANAGEMENT DISTRICT( IN THE DISTRICT COURT
7/9/2015 OFPM
1:07:02
4 AND GREATER SOUTHWEST ( CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ( Clerk
5 Plaintiffs (
and HARRIS COUNTY, THE HARRIS
6 COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (
EDUCATION, THE PORT OF (
7 HOUSTON AUTHORITY OF HARRIS(
COUNTY, THE HARRIS COUNTY ( HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE(
HARRIS COUNTY HOSPITAL (
9 DISTRICT, THE CITY OF (
HOUSTON, HOUSTON INDEPENDENT
10 SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND HOUSTON
COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM (
11 Intervenors (
v. (
12 JAY COHEN (
Defendant ( 133rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
13 _______________________________________________________
14 FINAL TRIAL
_______________________________________________________
15
16 On the 15th day of November, 2013, the
17 following proceedings came on to be held in the
18 above-titled and numbered cause before the Honorable
19 JACLANEL McFARLAND, Judge Presiding, held in Houston,
20 Harris County, Texas.
21 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype
22 machine.
23 DARLENE STEIN
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
24 133RD DISTRICT COURT
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
25
DARLENE STEIN
FINAL TRIAL
2
1 APPEARANCES
2 Ms. Yolanda M. Humphrey
SBN 24009764
3 1235 North Loop West, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77008
4 Telephone: (713) 862-1429 (Fax)
Attorney for Plaintiffs
5
6 Ms. Angelica M. Hernandez
SBN 00797872
7 Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, L.L.P.
1300 Main Street, Suite 300
8 Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 844-3501
9 Attorney for Intervenors
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DARLENE STEIN
FINAL TRIAL
3
1 EXHIBITS OFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF
2 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OFFERED ADMITTED VOL.
3 A. Tax Statements 5 5 1
4 B. Tax Statements 5 5 1
5
6
7
8 EXHIBITS OFFERED BY THE INTERVENORS
9 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OFFERED ADMITTED VOL.
10 A. Tax Statements 5 5 1
11 B. Affidavit 5 5 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DARLENE STEIN
FINAL TRIAL
4
1 (P R O C E E D I N G S)
2
3 THE COURT: The court calls cause number
4 2013-16814, Greater Southwest Management District vs. Jay
5 H. Cohen.
6 If you will announce who you are and who
7 you represent.
8 MS. HUMPHREY: Yolanda Humphrey and I'm
9 here on behalf of Plaintiffs.
10 MS. HERNANDEZ: Angelica Hernandez on
11 behalf of the Intervenors, Harris County and County Wide
12 Jurisdiction, City of Houston, Houston Community College
13 System and Houston Independent School District.
14 THE COURT: I call Mr. Cohen. Are you in
15 the courtroom?
16 Deputy, have you gone out and called his
17 name in the hall? Any answer?
18 BAILIFF: No answer, Judge.
19 THE COURT: Okay. Let the record reflect
20 that Jay H. Cohen has previously filed an answer in this
21 cause and has been given notice of the trial date and he
22 does not appear to be in the courtroom or in the
23 courthouse since the bailiff has gone out and called his
24 name outside of the courtroom and in the courthouse. So
25 he has failed to appear in court.
DARLENE STEIN
FINAL TRIAL
5
1 You may proceed, counsel.
2 MS. HUMPHREY: My name is Yolanda
3 Humphrey. I have certified delinquent tax statements
4 that have been marked Exhibit A and Exhibit B that I
5 would like to offer into evidence on behalf of the
6 Plaintiffs.
7 THE COURT: Any objection?
8 MS. HERNANDEZ: No objection, Judge.
9 THE COURT: They are admitted.
10 (Exhibits A and B were marked and admitted
11 in evidence.)
12 MS. HUMPHREY: Thank you, Your Honor.
13 MS. HERNANDEZ: On behalf of the
14 Intervenors, I'm offering into evidence 1, 2, 3 -- 5
15 certified tax statements marked as Harris County Exhibit
16 A and one document marked as Harris County Exhibit B. We
17 seek to recoup all past due taxes, penalties, interest,
18 and delinquent city liens.
19 THE COURT: Any objection?
20 MS. HUMPHREY: No objection, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: They are admitted.
22 (Harris County Exhibits A and B were
23 offered and admitted into evidence.)
24 THE COURT: Judgment for Plaintiffs.
25 MS. HUMPHREY: May I be excused?
DARLENE STEIN
Final Trial
6
1 THE COURT: You're excused. Have a good
2 weekend.
3 (Proceedings concluded.)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DARLENE STEIN
Final Trial
7
1 STATE OF TEXAS
2 COUNTY OF HARRIS
3 I, DARLENE STEIN, Official Court Reporter in and for
4 the 133rd District Court of Harris, State of Texas, do
5 hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a
6 true and correct transcription of all portions of
7 evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by
8 counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of
9 the Reporter's Record in the above-styled and numbered
10 cause, all of which occurred in open court or in chambers
11 and were reported by me.
12 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the
13 proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if
14 any, offered by the respective parties.
15 I further certify that the total cost for the
16 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $131.00 and was
17 paid by Mr. George F. May.
18
/s/Darlene Stein_________
19 DARLENE STEIN, CSR
Texas CSR 2557
20 Official Court Reporter
133rd District Court
21 Harris County, Texas
201 Caroline, 11th Floor
22 Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 368-6402
23 Expiration: 12/31/2016
24
25
DARLENE STEIN
Exhibit 2A
CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
3
Q35 '30Q
A19
149
* 11-
*1 u‘
MIKE SULLIVAN
HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
1001 PRESTON AVE SUITE 100
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 HIB fi
Certified Owner Legal Description:
COHEN JAYH LT8&TRS 98 11r>& 12 BLK428
1715 W ALABAMA ST OFC 3 SSBB
HOUSTON TX 77098-2807
Legal Acres: .2511
51
Acc()|1ntN() Parcel Address: 2113 BASTROP ST
As of Date 11/01/2013 APPR. DIST#: 0021460000008 Print Date: 11/01/2013 Printed By LBCSOMOZA
Cause N0 2013-16814 Suit 2010-06881 Jud 2013 Value; $79 454
Base
>< Tax Penalties & Collection Total
Year Value E:itsl Due Interest Fees
I\J S S 1 $729.83 $759.02 $0.00 $1,488.85 I
$245.61 $255.44 $0.00 $501.05
$19.46 $20.24 $0.00 $39.70 I
$11.19 $1 1.63 $0.00 $22.82
$121.25 $126.1 1 $0.00 $247.36
$3.69 $3.83 $0.00 $7.52 ‘
iA_
$58.33 $60.66 ' $0.00 $118.99
-l ~J>-l |>4 - o 4>wt\> —-O $403.02 $419.14 $0.00 $822.16
-1 ¥._._ . $1,592.38 $1,656.07 $0.00 $3,248.45
I $99.02 $88.72 $0.00 “$187.74
$33.57l $30.08 ' $0.00 $63.65
$2.50 $2.24 $0.00 $4.74
-J>-J>I\>-D>—~©- $1.40 $1.25 $0.00 $2.65
43 $16.45 $14.74 ' $0.00 $31.19
44 $0.51I $0.46 $0.00 I $0.97
$7.90 $7.08 $0.00 I $14.98
05-» - oe $54.68 $48.99 $0.00 I $103.67
Subtotals for 2009: $216.03 $193.56 $0.00 $409.59
201 $6 000 1 $245.79 $149.44 I $0.00 $395.23
$83.12 $50.54 I $0.00I $133.66
$5.97 $3.63 I $0.00 I $9.60 I
$3.951 $2.40 I $0.00 $6.35 I
l
$40.84 $24.84 I $0.00 $65.68
$1.40 $0.86 I $0.00 $2.26
$20.66 $12.56 $0.00 I $33.22
o~\-a>4 >-.| :=-| -o -z>t.5|\>—-0 $135.74 $82.53 I $0.00 $218.27
,_ . . ~
_ W Subtotals [or 2011: ____mS537,47 $864.27?
1 $511.09 $237.15 $0.00 I $748.24
I 40 $176.84 $82.05 I $0.00 $258.89
41 ,I $12.41I $5.76 I $0.00‘ $18.17 I
42 $8.62 $4.00 $0.00
I $l2.62I
. I
$80.49
$2.92
$37.35
$1.35 I
$0.00 I $117.84
-J;-JR->02 $0.00 I 7 $4.27 I
CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
I
Q35 C90
A1-
11*
PBX A9
MIKE SULLIVAN
HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
1001 PRESTON AVE., SUITE 100
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
Certified Owner: Legal Description:
COHEN JAYH LT8&TRS9B11D&12BL1(428
1715 W ALABAMA ST OFC 3 SSBB
HOUSTON, TX 77098-2807
Legal Acres: .2511
Aggount N0; Parcel Address: 2113 BASTROP ST
As of Date: 11/01/2013 APPR.DIST#: 0021460000008 Print Date: I1/01/2013 Printed By LBCSOMOZA
Cause No: 2013-16814 Suit 2010-06881 Jud 2013 Value: $79,454
'T—'T- '—'TTT ' 1 T’ T” “TI
Base I
Appraised Tax ; T1“ . Penalties & Collection ‘-1o -IE
IYCM‘ Vfllllt Units I Due Interest Fees
T2013 I 48 $42.93I $19.91 I $0.00I $62.84I
II I61 $282.23I $130.95 I $0.00 $413.18 I
si, 117g,53 $518. 52 g $0 00 W $1 , 636.05 I‘
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $3,463.41 $2,694.95 $0.00 $6,158.36
Tax Unit Codes:
1 Houston I.S.D. 40 Harris County 41 Harris County Flood Control Dist 42 Port of Houston Authority
43 Harris County Hospital District 44 Harris County Dept. of Education 48 Houston Community College System 61 City of Houston
IF YOU ARE 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER OR ARE DISABLED AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS YOUR RESIDENCE HOMESTEAD
YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE APPRAISAL DISTRJCT REGARDING ANY ENTITLEMENT YOU MA Y HA VE TO A POSTPONEMENT IN THE PAYMENT OF THESE
TAXES.
Partial Statement: Other Years and Tax Units may be due
Totals By Tax Unit I _____ ___ _ IM,
Tax Base Penalties Collection
Units Tax Due & Interest Fees 1 Total
.. __ 1 L. ..
$1,585.73 $1 ,234_33 $0.00 $2,820.06
40 $539.14 $418.1 1 $0.00 $957.25
41 $40.34 $31.87 $0.00 $72.21
I 42 $25.16 $19.28 $0.00 $44.44
43 1 $259.03 $203.04 $0.00 $462.07
$8.52 I
44 $6.50
J $0.00
I- ._ $15.02
$872.19 ,_I . $678.80.
I
CW Total H 40 T 44 $0.00 $1,550.99
48 $129.82 $100.21 I $0.00 $230.03
61 I $875.67 $681.61 $0.00 $1,557.28
1
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $3,463.41 $2,694.95 $0.00 $6,158.36
.1.88 P
age 2
CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
<2-‘S coo
I1‘t
4»? 1+A1-"\
\{,, \$\.
EX '*_"‘—i"_'—"—"“‘i
MIKE SULLIVAN
HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
1001 PRESTON AVE., SUITE 100
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
Certified Owner: Legal Description:
COHEN JAYH LT8&TRS9B11D&12BLK428
1715 W ALABAMA ST OFC 3 SSBB
HOUSTON, TX 77098-2807
Legal Acres: .2511
Acgount N0; Parcel Address: 2113 BASTROP ST
As of Date: 11/01/2013 APPR. DIST#: 0021460000008 Print Date: 11/01/2013 Printed By: LBCSOMOZA
Cause No: 2013-16814 Suit 2010-06881 Jud 2013 Value: $79,454
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS
I, MIKE SULLIVAN, Tax Assessor-Collector in and for Harris County, Texas, do hereby certify this to be a
true and correct copy of the records of the H\a7is County Tax Office, for the tax year(s) indicated.
Witness my hand this {I} day of Kb 20 (3
.;\fllI1itm,,
y"fz2-..2;<_>..»
as "9
6"
MIKE SULLIVAN
8 4' ' Tax Assessor-Collector
Harris County Texas
urnhlum, as
By /)1).
9IUI.
QQ*
H
V ..q."'6u"\ !Iu’,'§?.fiT‘:\\‘\
.‘,6\"‘$sess;;,
. Q‘.‘
Deputy
Page 3 of 3
CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
‘I
1"‘ 85 Co
H4 A)-
11> It
if
TEX»?
MIKE SULLIVAN
HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
HARRIS COUl\lT“$
1001 PRESTON AVE., SUIT E 100 I Q
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
Certified Owner: Legal Description:
COHEN JAYH LTS6&7&TRS 8A& 12 BLK6
1715 W ALABAMA ST OFC 2 HOLMAN OUTLOT 40
HOUSTON, TX 77098-2807
Legal Acres: .3545
Account N0: 019-190-000-0006 Pa"¢¢lAd -l>B-l=J> I
—'0Ob J|\)>—~® $1,053.78 $1,702.91 $0.00 1 $2,756,691
ix //2 .fi13t61=|5r6r20114_;___ H $4,849.41 $7,836.65 $0.00 $12,686.06 I
‘2005 $285,640I 1 $2,899.17 $4,267.58 $0.00 $7,166.75
$709.15 $1,026.85 $0.00 I $1,736.00 .
-b-P>-O $58.92 $85.32 $0.00 I $144.24,
42 $26.14 $37.86 $0.00 $64.00 1
43 $340.80 $493.48 $0.00 I $834.28 I
44 $11.15 $16.15 $0.00 I $27.30
48 $169.84 $245.92 $0.00 $415.76
61 I $1,148.34 $1,662.79 $0.00 $2,811.13 I
ii
sfiitliiis 1812005; ss,s6s.s1 “$7,835.95 $0.00" $13,199.46 I
2006 $308,800“ I I 52,9502 $3,933.56 $0.00 I "$8188.58 I
40 $807.61 $1,072.59 $0.00 I $1,880.26 I
41 $65.05. $86.39 $0.00 I $151.44 I
42 I $26.14‘ $34.71 $0.00 I $60.85
43 I $385.70 $512.21 $0.00 $897.91
44 I $12.63 $16.77 $0.00 I $29.40 I
48 $191.03 $253.69 $0.00 ~ $444.72 I
61 $1,294.64 $1,719.28 $0.00 $3,013.92 j
.
Subtotals forI 2006: A 85,744.88 »-9. 82,529.20 $0.00 $13,374.0sTI
no o Q I $386,000 $3,214.69‘ $3,806I20 1 “$0.00 $7,020.89 I
40
I
$1,090.53 $1,291.18 $0.00 $2,381.71 I
'_ 41 I
$86.32I $102.20 $0.00 I $188.52
42 . $39.94 $47.29 $0.00 $87.23 .
I
43 I $534.05 $632.31 $0.00 ‘ $1,166.36I
44 $16.27 $19.26 $0.00 $35.53 j
1.88
Page
CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
*1
w ‘:8
.4’ 19°
8
11$»
E’ 1
1'
’< 9
‘
/77~:
MIKE SULLIVAN
HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
1001 PRESTON AVE., SUITE 100
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
Certified Owner: Legal Description:
COHEN JAYH LTS6&7&TRS 8A& 1213186
1715 W ALABAMA ST OFC 2 HOLMAN OUTLOT 40
HOUSTON, TX 77098-2807
Legal Acres: .3545
Account N0: 019-190-000-0006 Par“! Addressl 9 STUART 5T
AS Of Date: 11/0l/2013 APPR. DIST#Z 0191900000006 Print Date: 1 1/01/2013 Printed By LBCSOMOZA
Cause No: 2013-16814 Suit Z013 Value: $339 680
7 77 ~-_ __ _ ___.,
1 Base
1 Appraised Tax TH Penalties & 031166116 1 Q Q-8‘.1
1Year Value Units D119 Interest Fees ,
2007 $256.89 $304.16 $0.00 1 $561.05 1
05-$> -oo $1,789.11 $2,118.31 $0.00 ‘ $3,907.42 1
f%§‘is=£11>161=1.§@?6r 2007: $7,027.80 $8,320.91 $0.00 $15,348.-111
12008 $463,200 $4,105.181 $4,269.39 $0.00 $8,374.57
1 ‘ $1,381.391 $1,436.64 $0.00 1 $2,818.03
1 $109521 $1 13.90 $0.00 1 $223.42
$62931 $65.45 $0.00 1 $128381
1 $681.99 $709.27 $0.00 1 $1,391.261
$20.73 $21.56 $0.00 1 $42.29 1
1 $328.04 $341.16 $0.00 1 $669,201
‘ o\-|>4 J>4 J=-4> -o ~|>w~—-o’‘ $2,266.95 $2,357.63 $0.00 1 $4,624.58 1
120091
, 81111161613
1500,0400 1 HI
1
In
$8,956.73
$1,060.75
$9,315.00
$950.44
$0.00
$0.00 1
11w1¢?2.1
$2,011.19 1
40 1 $359.70 $322.30 $0.00 1 $682001
41 ‘ $26801 $24.0| $0.00 1 $50.81 §
1 $15001 $13.44 $0.00 1 $28.44
$176.22‘ $l57.90 $0.00 1 $334.12
$5.55 $4.97 $0.00 1 $10.52 1
$84.571 $75.77 $0.00 1 $160341
O\J>~J>-$>-K>~ —-O0-J>~LMl\) 1 $585761 $524.84 $0.00 $1,110.601
Subtotals for 2009: $2,314.35 $2,073.67 $0.00 84,388.02 1
1 20111 $225,000 A 1 $289.18 $175.82 $0.00 $465001
40 $97791 $59.46 $0.00 $157.25 1
41 $7.02 $4.27 $0.00 1 $11.29 1
1 42 ‘ $4.64 $2.82 $0.00 1 $7.46 1
1 ‘ 1 43 $48041 $29.20 $0.00 1 $77.24 1
* 44 1 $1.651 $1.00 $0.00 1 $2.65
1 48 $24.30 $14.77 $0.00 $39.07 1
61 $159.69 $97.09 $0.00 1 $256781
_
Subtotals fur 2011; 8682.31 I -.. “"°"?,,w $0.00
.8» $1,016.74i
O >_8 $478,6401 1 1 $4,987.63 $2,314.26 $0.00 1 $7,301.89 1
1 40 1 $1,725.69 $800.72 $0.00 1 $2,526.41 1
_ __S_
LiLL).
41 $121.12‘ $56.20 $0.00 $177.32 1
1.88
CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
'—'OO $2,754.251 $1,277.98 $0.00 1 $4,032.23
I
$437 4 \ §\tbtotals for 2012:
= . .1s\s; -8 ,\:\
$10,905.86 $5,060.33 $0.00 sis1 966.19 1
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $45,794.85 $48,456.14 $0.00 $94,250.99
Tax Unit Codes:
1 I-Iouston I.S.D. 40 Harris County 41 Harris County Flood Control Dist 42 Port of I-Iouston Authority
43 Harris County Hospital District 44 Harris County Dept. of Education 48 Houston Community College System 61 City of Houston
IF YOU ARE 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER OR ARE DISABLED AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS YOUR RESIDENCE HOMESTEAD
YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT REGARDING ANY ENTITLEMENT YOU MAY HA VE TO A POSTPONEMENT IN THE PAYMENT OF THESE
TAXES.
Partial Statement: Other Years and Tax Units may be due
Totals By Tax Unit 1 _,_ , __ __ __ _ _ ___
Tax Base Penalties Collection
TOT Units Tax Due & Interest Fees Total
1 $22,110.92 $23,906.40 $0.00 $46,017.32
40 $6,820.17 $7,057.32 $0.00 $13,877.49
41 $528.54 1 $559.21 $0.00 $1,087.75
42 $286.08 $284.45 $0.00 $570.53
43 $3,260.63 $3,397.15 Q $0.00 $6,657.78
44 $106.71 $109.44 $0.00 $216.15
cw Total 40f 44 $11,002.13 $1 1,407.57 $0.00 $22,409.70
1 48 $1,629.28 $1,681.34 $0.00 $3,310.62
1 61 $11,052.52 $11,460.83 $0.00 $22,513.35
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $45,794.85 $48,456.14 $0.00 $94,250.99
188
Pag C
CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
v
Q-
<95 Coo
*"1'@‘:* 1+13.9
-"=55. -..‘.
EX
Y
7J‘
MIKE SULLIVAN
HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
1001 PRESTON AVE., SUITE 100
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
Certified Owner: Legal Description:
COHEN JAY H LTS6&7&TRS8A&l2BLK6
1715 W ALABAMA ST OFC 2 HOLMAN OUTLOT 40
HOUSTON, TX 77098-2807
Legal Acres: .3545
Account No: 019-190-000-0006 Parcel Address: 0 STUART ST
As of Date: 11/01/2013 APPR. DIST#: 0191900000006 P ri'nt D ate: 11/01/2013 Printed By LBCSOMOZA
Cause N0: 2013-16814 Suit 2013 Value: $339,680
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS
I , MIKE SULLIVAN , Tax Assessor- Collector in a nd fo r H arris County, Texas, do hereby certify this to be a
tr ue an d correct copy of the records of the Harris
' County Tax Office, for the tax year(s) indicated.
Witness my hand this day of 1/ 20
‘tsiulfltnrq,
1'4,-1' MIKE SULLIVAN
Tax Assessor-Collector
mu :6 Harris County Texas
1
B, "Q27. 5
W
'-. 59
.,.-'
'""%,
6*“ *‘_",~
*4-
i»54-9*‘
%§ $°e
nu."
$ "vu4»0I"§\
.T&‘I
9-.
Deputy
Page
CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
D
6 14,,
é... M
CO
"4
E.
-k
*5
MIKETLIVAN I
HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
1001 PRESTON AVE., SUITE I00 I
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 E
Certified Owner: Legal Description:
COHEN JAY H LT 3 BLK 34
1715 W ALABAMA ST OFC 2 WASHINGTON TERRACE
HOUSTON TX 77098-2807
Legal Acres: .1326
Account N0; Parcel Address: 3010 ALABAMA ST
As of Date 11/01/2013 APPR. DIST#: 0611680340003 Print Date: 11/01/2013 Printed By LBCSOMOZA
Cause No 2013-16814 Sui 2013 Value: $31 500
Base 1 1
Appraised Tax 1 Tax 1 Penalties & Collection T6611
Year Value Units Due 1 Interest Fees
NOO $16,330 $62.52 $101.03 1 $0.00 1 $163.55 1
$15.64 $25.28 1 $0.00 1 $40.92
$1.30 $2.10 $0.00 1 $3.40
$0.65 $1.05 i $0.00 j $1.70 1
$7.44 $12.02. $0.00 $19.46 1
$0.25 $0.41 ; $0.00 $0.66 1
$3.75 $6.07 3 $0.00 $9.82 1
$25.42 $41.08 $0.00 $66.50 1
Subtotii $116.97 “£139.04 $0.00 $306.01 1
$25,988 $222.41 $327.38 ' $0.00 $549791
$54.16 $79.72 $0.00 I $133.88 3
$4.50 $6.62 $0.00 1 $11.12 ‘
$2.00 $2.94 $0.00 $4.94 j
$26.03 $38.31 $0.00 $64.34
$0.84 $1.24 $0.00 1 $2.08 1
$12.97 $19.09 $0.00 $32.06 1
$87.70 $129.09 $0.00 $216.79 1
Subtot $4/10.61 $604.39 . $0.00 81.015001
$37,538 $312.97 $415.62 $0.00 $728.59 1
$85.34 $113.33 $0.00 $198671
$6.88 $9.14 $0.00 $16.02
$2.76 $3.66 $0.00 $6.42
_4L__Q\_ $40.75 $54.12 $0.00 $94.87f
$1.33 $1.77 $0.00 $3.10 ~
$20.19 $26.81 I $0.00 1 $47.00;
$136.79 $181.65 $0.00 $318.44 1
Subtotals for 2006: . , V 4 $607.01 - ~$a01e1.0 ... $0‘ 00 $141311
’ '
$46,200 $345.51 $409.09 1 $0.00 $754.60
$1 17.20 $138.76 1 $0.00 1 $255.961
$9.28 $10.99 i $0.00 1 $20271
$4.29 $5.08 $0.00 $9.37 1
$57.40 $67.96 $0.00 1 $125.361
1?;
44 1 $1.74 $2.06 1 $0.00 $3.80 1
CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
"1 x5 Co
‘.1
Eiiw xv‘
‘I. 1+
TEXA9
MIKE SULLIVAN
HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
1001 PRESTON AVE., SUITE 100
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
Certified Owner: Legal Description:
COHEN JAY H LT 3 BLK 34
1715 W ALABAMA ST OFC 2 WASHINGTON TERRACE
HOUSTON, TX 77098-2807
Legal Acres: .1326
Account N0; P?ll"C€l A(l(II‘€SSZ 3010 ALABAMA ST
As of Date: 11/01/2013 APPR. DIST#: 0611680340003 Print Date: 11/01/2013 Printed By LBCSOMOZA
Cause No: 2013-16814 2013 Value: $31,500
Totals By Tax Unit M _ _
1
1 Tax Base Penalties Collection 1
‘ Units Tax Due & Interest Fees L Total
, _ ,__ __i__
-A . $1,293.59 $1,592.09 $0.00 $2,885.68
40 $390.64 $471.56 $0.00 $862.20
41 $31.05 $37.67 $0.00 $68.72
42 $14.85 $17.73 $0.00 $32.52 1
$418.52 1
$1
43 ‘ $189.80 $228.72 $0.00
$5.98 $7.24 $0.00 $13.22
1£“lI9£a_'. .- ...§91f‘.f‘..-..__1 $632.32 $762.92 $0.00‘?‘ ‘_
..__...__.__._. ....$O‘00
__
en 524
4s 1 $92.47 $1 1 1.72 en 1. .» o\oP.
;-‘N G
61 T $635.59 1 $766.69
I
$0.00 1 $1,402.28
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $2,653.97 $3,233.42 $0.00 $5,887.39
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS
I, MIKE SULLIVAN, Tax Assessor-Collector in and for Harris County, Texas, do hereby certify this to be a
true and correct copy of the records of the Harris County Tax Office, for the tax year(s) indicated.
Witness my hand this
¢;u1tam|;,, .
15_ day of M M . . /3
0
c.0\~*~E¢r "%
,........,_ 0,, €\\
‘O
Q, *1’
‘O
MIKE SULLIVAN
um“
Tax Assessor-Collector
" Harris County Texas
B ">22.
RIF
“Kl
en
% ‘RmscOv
*_“,. . .-‘~¢,__¢%%4 ‘nu nun‘.
Qg-‘“:‘W;
‘5sE8s'$'‘-.‘
;@~21.-‘ ’it
I""'1’¥l|nu
SEXY
QII-
6%
*
y
""¢:|a|u;1\1\“ Deputy
I $8
Page 3 of 3
CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
O
S Co
Q
‘YZWH =1»19‘
MIKE SULLIVAN
Im '==a=:Tn
.
5 COUNTY
HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
1001 PRESTON AVE., sum; 100 HIB A
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
Certified Owner: Legal Description:
COHEN JAY H LT 10 BLK 6
I715 W ALABAMA ST OFC 3 HOLMAN OUTLOT 65
HOUSTON, TX 77098-2807
Legal Acres: .1148
Account N0; Parcel Address: 2311 WHEELER ST
As of Date: 11/01/2013 APPR. DIST#: 0192680000010 Print Date: 11/01/2013 Printed By LBCSOMOZA
Cause No: 2013-16814 Suit 2013 Value: $37,500
Base
1 Appraised Tax Ta! Penalties & = Collection 1 Total
Year‘ Value Units1 D119 Interest Fees 1
I\) OO $32,500 1 M" $239179 $318.44 ' $0.00 1 $558.23
$65.39 $86.84 $0.00 1 $152.23
$5.26 1 $6.98 $0.00 1 $12.24
$2.11 1 $2. 80 $0.00 1 $4.91
Jr-J>-I>-l> u)I\> —'O $31.22 1 $41 .46 $0.00 $72.68
44 $1.04 1 $1.38 $0.00 1 $2.42
48 $15.46 $20.53 $0.00 1 $35.99
ML
MM
61 $104.81 $139.19 $0.00 , $244.00
11 Subtotals for 2006: $465.08 $617.62 $0.00 $1,082.70 1
1 20071 $25,000 1 $101.21 $119.83 1 $0.00 T ___ $221.04
40 $34.34 $40.66 $0.00 $75.00
41 $2.72 $3.22 $0.001 $5.94
42 $1.26 $1.49 $0.00. $2.75
43 $16.81 $19.90 $0.00 1 $36.71
44 $0.51 $0.61 1 $0.00 $1.121
48 $8.09 $9.57 $0.00 1 $17.66 1
61 $56.33 $66.69 $0.00 1 $123.02
1:1 Subtotals for 2007: $221.27 $261.97 __M§9.~99
$010.6. W 948%1
‘ 2008 ‘“$3 $30,000 1 WTT$11M58.6M8MM $142. 17 TMTiMWvi$0i‘00 $300.85 1
MM 40 $53.81 $48.21 $0.00 $102.021
1 1 41 $4.01 1 $3.60 $0.00 $7.61
-I>~I\) $2.24 $2.01 $0.00 $4.25
1 ‘431 $26361 $23.62 $0.00 A $49.98
1 1 44 $0.83’ $0.74 $0.00 $1 .57
1.88
CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
Q35 coo
1»
€__>
rEX As MM
Mi
MIKE SULLIVAN
HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
I001 PRESTON AVE., SUITE 100
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
Certified Owner: Legal Description:
COHEN JAY H LT 10 BLK 6
1715 W ALABAMA ST OFC 3 HOLMAN OUTLOT 65
HOUSTON, TX 77098-2807
Legal Acres: .1148
Account No: 019-268-000-0010 Parcel Address: 2311 WHEELER ST
AS Of D8801 11/01/2013 APPR. DIST#! 0192680000010 Print Date: 11/01/2013 Printed By: LBCSOMOZA
Cause No: 2013-16814 Suit 2013 Value: $37,500
Base 1 1
Appraised TEX T1“ Penalties & Collection Total 1
Year Value Units; DI"? [um-¢§| 1 Fggs 1
2009 “Mm $12.65 $11.34; $0.00 $23.99
Ct-l> >—IOO $87.63. $78.52 1 $0.00 $166.15
$346.21 $310.21 $0.00 $656.42
20111 $32,500 1 $28.94. $21.76 $0.00 $50.70
1 1 40 $9.70 $7.29 $0.00 $16.99
1 $0.73 $0.55 $0.00 $1.28
1 $0.511 $0.38 I $0.00 $0.89
$4.80 $3.61 $0.00 $8.41
$0.17 $0.13 $0.00 $0.30
$2.30 $1.73 I $0.00 $4.03
O\-l'>~J>-li =~ —-o J>wM—-
1 $15.96 $12.00 - $0.00 $27.96
$63.11 $47.45 $0.00 $110.56 1
20111 $32,500 1 $28921 $17.58 $0.00 $46.50
$9.781 $5.95 $0.00 $15.73
$0.701 $0.43 $0.00 $1.13
-l>-l>-l\k)—*O $0.461 $0.28 $0.00 $0.74
1 43 $4.801‘ $2.92 1 $0.00 $7.72
1 44 1 $0.171 $0.111 $0.00 $0.28
1
1 48 $2.43 1 $1.48 1 $0.00 $3.91
61 1 $15.971 $9.71 1 $0.00 $25.68 1
1M Subtotals §§f12l_)_11__1f__ $63-23 ____1 _ $38.46 $0.00 $101.69
‘ 20121 $37,500 1 1 $250831 $116381 $0.00 $367.21
1 ‘ . 40 $86791 $40.27 1 $0.00 $127.06
1 41 $6.091 $2.83 1 $0.00 $8.92
1 42 1
$4.23 1 $1.96 $0.00 $6.19 1
1 43 $39.50; $18.33 : $0.001 $57.83 1
1 44 $1.431 $0.66 . $0.00 $2.09 1
1 1 48 $21,071 $9.78 $0.00 $30.85
1 1 61 $138511 $64.27 1 $0.00 $202.78
.4» ' '
1 8681666 161~z012= $546.45 " .$802.9s~1
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $2,053.55 $1,890.24 $0.00 $3,943.79
1.88
Page 2 of 4
CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
*’
an . . §; a Q,-‘1’ MIKE SULLIVAN
Tax Assessor-Collector
§
Harris County Texas
“ggflll t m Q
1---
~"'-. . .-""Q
§§§.§€§""1i*'éi =J"d6““§‘I" 'a|§;:i 1'\n\“ ‘
sf:-+¢,' C‘.‘ Y
u.‘
W ‘<
"Inmnm\\\“ D¢P"tY
Page 4
1 CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
4'
<315 Co0
4-113‘
to
1 /77. 1 ><
MIKE SULLIVAN
~ 1
1* COUNTY
HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
1001 PRESTON AVE. SUITE 100
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 lB A
Certified Owner: Legal Description:
COHEN JAY H LTS 9 & 10 BLK1
1715 W ALABAMA ST OFC 3 SMITH FURNITURE co SEC 2
HOUSTON, TX 77098-2807
Legal Acres: .1435
Accgunt N9; Parcel Address: 3506 NAGLE ST
AS of Date: 11/01/2013 APPR. DIST#: 0192030010009 Print Date: 11/01/2013 Printed By LBCSOMOZA
Cause No: 2013-16814 Suit 2013 Value; $50,000
Base
Appraised Tax TKX Penalties & Collection Total 1
Year Value Unigs Due Interest Fees 1
2006 $34,375 1 1 $184.46 $244.96 $0.00 1 $429.42
40 1 $50.30 $66.80 $0.00 1 $117.10
1 $4.05 $5.32 $0.00 1 $9.43
1 $1.63 $2.16 I $0.001 $3.79
Jr-l>-I> u:I\>~—- 1 $24.02 $31.90 $0.00 » $55.92
44 1 $0.78 $1.03 $0.00 1 $1.81
48 $11.90 $15.81 $0.001 $27.71
61 1 $80.63 $107.07 $0.00 1 $187.70
4;:
ii Siggtgtals for 2006: $357.77 $475.11 $0.00 $832.88
IO C) O T $34,250 1 1 $143.14 $169.47 $0.001 $312.61
40 $48.55 $57.48 $0.00 1 $106.03
41 1 $3.84 $4.55 $0.00 $8.39
42 1 $1.78, $2.1 1 $0.00 1 $3.89
43 $23.781 $28.16 $0.00 1 $51.94
$0.721 $0.85 $0.00 $1.57
$11.441 $13.54 $0.00 1 $24.98
MMMM
O\-l>-|=~ -100-Ii- I $79.66? $94.32 $0.00 1 $173.98
Subtotals for 2007: $312.91 M_1A1_$370.48 $0.00 $63339
41 $31,"25'0'1'“'“ 1 1 $107941 $1 12.26 $0.00 1 $220.20
1
40 $36.321 $37.77 i $0.00 1 $74.09
1 . 41 $2.881 $3.00 $0.00 1 $5.88
1 11 42 $1.66 $1.72 $0.00 $3.38
1 43 $17.93 $18.65 $0.00 1 $36.58
44 $0.54 $0.56 $0.00 1 $1.10
48 1 $8.62 $8.96 $0.00 j $17.58 1
61 I $59.60 $61.98 $0.00 $121.58 1
" ' Subtotals for 2008: 1 $235.49 W $4 3911
.-.-.....L.____._..........I§F‘~
_;.;.1;.;aa%.“i"“‘$°' °° ‘
20091 $43,750; 1 Wii i i i i MM $252541 $226.27 $0.00 $478.81 1
1 40 $85631 $76.73 $0.00 1 $162.36,
‘ 41 $6.381 $5.72 - $0.001 $12.10
42 1 $3.571 $3.20 $0.00 1 $6.77
43 1 $41951 $37.59 $0.00 1 $79.54 1
44 $1.321 $1.19 $0.00 1 $2.51
1.88
Page1of4
.. .. .__.._.W....4- _......._._.Ls......LM_...... _ ...........».....__2 ,.. ._._._E‘_4..._ > _..._....._..._._. . . ...,..._...w1\.-~ »»- » -=» 4»- ~~» ~
CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
‘ x5 Co0
wig, .-
‘1 =811>“
PEXP-9
MIKE SULLIVAN
HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
1001 PRESTON AVE., SUITE 100
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
Certified Owner: Legal Description:
COHEN JAYH LTS9& 10 BLK1
1715 W ALABAMA ST OFC 3 SMITH FURNITURE co SEC 2
HOUSTON, TX 77098-2807
Legal Acres : .1435
Accgunt N0; Parcel Address: 3506 NAGLE ST
As of Date: 11/01/2013 APPR. DIST#:0192030010009 Print Date: 11/01/2013 Printed By: LBCSOMOZA
Cause No: 2013-16814 Suit 2013 Value: $50,000
Base 1
1.1
1
Year
Appraised
Value
Tax
1Units1
1 48 1
1 61
TRX
D119
I $20.13
$139.45
1 Penalties &
Interest
$18.04
$124.95
Collection
Fees
$0.00 1
$0.00 1
Tota
$38.17 1
$264.40
12010;
Q SubtotaIs&f.or 2009:
$45,313i 1
$550.97
$18.08
$493.69
$13.60
$0.00
$0.00 1
_ *1~9~259§J
$31.68
140 $6.07 $4.56 $0.00 $10.63
1 $0.45 $0.34 $0.00 $0.79
* $0.33 $0.25 $0.00 1 $0.58
1 $3.00 $2.26 $0.00 $5.26 1
1 $0.10 $0.08 $0.00 1 $0.18 1
$1.45 $1.09 $0.00 1 $2.54
O5-|>-I>J>~J>-I> - o -l>w|\>- $9.98 $7.50 $0.00 1 $17.48
“ , I sub¢»:ar§’f6é2010=
..__._.';'.<....... ...... _ >' Wk
$39.46 $29.68 $0.00 $69.14
1 201111“ $45,313‘ 1 $18.09 $1 1.00 $0.00 $29.09
1 40 $6.11 $3.72 $0.00 . $9.83
41 $0.441 $0.27 $0.00 1 $0.71
42 1 $0.29 $0.18 $0.00 1 $0.47
43 j $3.00 $1.82 $0.00 $4.82
44; $0.101 $0.06 $0.00 $0.16 1
48 1 $1.51 $0.91 $0.00 $2.42
61 ‘I $9.99 $6.08 $0.00 $16.07
Subtotals for 2011: $39.53 ' 9 $24.04 $0.00 I $63.57 1
12012“ $56,250 1 $467.71 $217.02 $0.00 A$68'4i'7'3i1
1 40 . $161.83 $75.09 $0.00 $236.92
1 ‘ 41 1 $11.36 $5.27 $0.00 $16.63 1
42 1 $7.89 $3.67 1 $0.00 $1 1.56 1
43 $73661 $34.18 1 $0.00 $107.84
44 $2.671 $1.24; $0.00 $3.91 1
48 $39.29; $18.23 $0.00 $57.52 1
1
61 $258281 $119841 $378.12 1
1. _. $0.00
. -» Subtotals for 2012: 114022-69 .; ;"»i1‘\>?3°;:\”US$0.00 $1,497.23
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $2,558.82 $2,112.44 $0.00 $4,671.26
1.88
Page 2
CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
x9 Co
42> QQ
W L
A
1'.’ 1»
g
EX 7 6*
MIKE SULLIVAN
HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
1001 PRESTON AVE., SUITE 100
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
Certified Owner: Legal Description:
COHEN JAY H LTS 9& 10 BLK1
1715 W ALABAMA ST OFC 3 SMITH FURNITURE co SEC 2
HOUSTON, TX 77098-2807
Legal Acres: .1435
Account N0; Parcel Address: 3506 NAGLE ST
AS of Date: 11/01/2013 APPR. DIST#: 0192030010009 Print Date: 11/01/2013 Printed By LBCSOMOZA
Cause N0: 2013-16814 Suit 2013 Value: $50,000
Tax Unit Codes:
1 Houston I.S.D. 40 Harris County 41 Harris County Flood Control Dist 42 Port of Houston Authority
43 Harris County Hospital District 44 Harris County Dept. of Education 48 Houston Community College System 61 City of Houston
IF YOU ARE 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER OR ARE DISABLED AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS YOUR RESIDENCE HOMESTEAD,
YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT REGARDING ANY ENTITLEMENT YOU MA Y HA VE TO A POSTPONEMENT IN THE PA YMENT OF THESE
TAXES.
Partial Statement: Other Years and Tax Units
' may be due
T_o_t_als By Tax Unit
Tax Base Penalties Collection
Units Tax Due & Interest Fees . Total
.
‘ l $1,191.96 $994.58 $0.00 $2,186.54
1 40 $394.81 $322.15 $0.00 $716.96
41 $29.40 $24.53 $0.00 $53.93
42 $17.15 $13.29 $0.00 $30.44
43 $187.34 $154.56 $0.00 $341.90
1
44 $6.23 ; $5.01 $0.00 $11.24
1 CW:1:ota1A _i0— 44 $634.93*§_ My $519.54 $0.00 $1,154.47
4s $94.34 1 $76.58 $0.00 $170.92
61 $637.59 1 $521.74 $0.00 $1,159.33
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: $2,558.82 $2,112.44 $0.00 $4,671.26
188 a 3
, CERTIFIED DELINQUENT TAX STATEMENT DETAIL
I‘
“.453, 1'7. ._ *AB‘
IToEX ‘Ts<9
MIKE SULLIVAN
HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR
1001 PRESTON AVE., SUITE 100
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
Certified Owner: Legal Description:
COHEN JAYH LTS9& 10 BLK1
1715 W ALABAMA ST OFC 3 SMITH FURNITURE CO SEC 2
HOUSTON, TX 77098-2807
Legal Acres: . 1435
Account N0; ParcelAddress: 3506 NAGLE ST
As of Date: 11/01/2013 APPR. DIST#: 0192030010009 Print Date: 11/01/2013 Printed By: LBCSOMOZA
Cause No : 2013-16814 Suit 2013 Value: $50,000
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS
I, MIKE SULLIVAN, Tax Assessor-Collector in and for Harris County, Texas, do hereby certify this to be a
true and correct copy of the records of the Harris County Tax Office, for the tax year(s) indicated.
Witness my hand this day of V 20_/3
. ;m|nam,,%
f“=<>.es<-we»
* MIKE SULLIVAN
Tax Assessor-Collector
V O
Harris Coun Texas
S 4°~>1»
-.,_ _ _ _ _,-
o #25-I-E353?
“g\ iIl I§u~
#*
%"lr£fi:fi33u\"3\
'I‘!)""fi?.fi?‘:\\\\¢“
cu y
Deputy
Page 4 of 4