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
490 S.W.3d 624
Tex. App.2016Background
- This is a tax delinquency suit where Jay Cohen challenges two judgments nunc pro tunc entered after the trial court lost plenary power.
- Cohen seeks reinstatement of the original final judgment, arguing the revisions were judicial not clerical and thus void.
- Trial court entered a November 15, 2013 final judgment against Cohen on five parcels with amounts attributed to multiple taxing units.
- Harris County and several taxing units intervened and presented delinquent tax records and certified statements as evidence.
- The November judgment identified five properties and assigned amounts to various taxing units, including HISD, with a subsequent June 2014 amendment request.
- A May 21, 2015 judgment nunc pro tunc further amended to include HCCS and adjust market values; Cohen appeals the nunc pro tunc amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amendments to the judgment nunc pro tunc were clerical or judicial in nature. | Cohen argues amendments were judicial, thus void. | Districts contend amendments were clerical corrections. | First amendment clerical; valid. |
| Whether the omission of HISD in the first amendment was clerical. | Cohen asserts omission of HISD was accidental. | Districts argue correction aligns with judgment terms. | Clerical correction; HISD included. |
| Whether the May 21, 2015 amendment to add HCCS and increase amounts was clerical or judicial. | Cohen contends it was clerical. | Districts contend it was a substantive change. | Void; not clerical. |
| Whether changes to adjudged market values were clerical or judicial. | Cohen argues values reflect trial evidence. | Values altered beyond trial record. | Void; changes not clerical. |
| Overall validity: which nunc pro tunc judgments survive on appeal. | May 21, 2015 judgment void; July 25, 2014 valid. | May 21, 2015 partially valid; July 25 valid. | Vacate May 21, 2015; reinstate July 25, 2014; affirm as reinstated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Transp. v. API Pipe & Supply, 397 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. 2013) (delineates clerical vs. judicial errors in post-judgment corrections)
- JG Wentworth Originations, LLC v. Freelon, 446 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (post-judgment corrections; plenary jurisdiction limits)
- Barton v. Gillespie, 178 S.W.3d 121 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (clerical vs. judicial errors in judgments)
- Finlay v. Jones, 435 S.W.2d 136 (Tex. 1968) (clerical and judicial error distinctions in judgments)
- In re Fuselier, 56 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (judicial errors can arise from written judgments)
- Dikeman v. Snell, 490 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. 1973) (language inserted by mistake can be judicial error)
- LaGoye v. Victoria Wood Condo. Ass’n, 112 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (rendered judgment extends beyond oral pronouncement)