“The judgment creditor's first step in creating a judicial lien is to obtain an abstract of the judgment.” Citicorp Real Estate, 747 S.W.2d at 929 see Tex. To create an enforceable judgment lien against real property owned by the judgment debtor, the judgment creditor must comply with the requirements of Chapter 52 of the Texas Property Code. Banque Arabe Internationale D'Investissement, 747 S.W.2d 926, 929 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988, writ denied). In Texas, no lien is created by the mere rendition of a money judgment. The abstract itself specifies the names of the plaintiffs and defendant, the number of the suit in which judgment was rendered, the defendant's address, the date of initial judgment, the amount of the judgment and balance due, and the rate of interest specified in the initial judgment. The only amendment to the judgment was the lowering of the interest rate on the judgment from ten percent to five percent in order to meet the statutory requirements. #ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT TEXAS TRIAL#Then, while it had plenary power to do so, the trial court signed an amended judgment altering the interest rate. Peeler filed the abstract promptly after the trial court signed the initial judgment. November 19: The trial court signed an amended judgment. November 10: Rogers filed a motion to modify the judgment. October 27: Michael Rogers married Audrey Littleton.2 October 17: Peeler filed the abstract of judgment. October 16: The trial court signed the initial judgment. The parties in this case stipulated to the sequence of relevant 2003 events: The sole question before this Court is whether the trial court erred by declaring valid the abstract of judgment filed October 17, 2003. The trial court ruled that the abstract was valid, and that judgment was later severed from the remaining action to create a final and appealable order. Rogers and Peeler filed competing motions seeking declaratory relief concerning the validity of Peeler's abstract of judgment against Rogers. Because the abstract substantially complies with the statutory requirements, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Rogers contends that the ruling is erroneous because the abstract lists the wrong date of judgment and the wrong interest rate. Rogers and Audrey Diane Rogers (collectively, Rogers) appeal from a declaratory judgment that Tommy Peeler's October 17, 2003, abstract of judgment 1 was valid and effective. Dunn, Smead, Anderson & Dunn, Longview, for appellee. Young, Patton, Nix & Young, LLP, Longview, for appellants. Decided: November 12, 2008īefore MORRISS, C.J., CARTER and MOSELEY, JJ. ROGERS and Audrey Diane Rogers, Appellants, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |