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
01-14-00914-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 23, 2015Background
- Midtown Management District sued Jay Cohen to recover delinquent property taxes; Harris County taxing units (including Houston ISD and Houston Community College System) intervened and filed certified delinquent tax records as Exhibit A.
- Trial occurred on November 15, 2013; Cohen did not appear. Plaintiffs’ certified tax records were admitted and the trial court orally rendered judgment for the plaintiffs and entered a written Final Judgment awarding recovery to the "Plaintiff Taxing Units."
- The written Final Judgment omitted typing out Houston ISD on page one and failed to list Houston Community College System (HCCS) in the Recovery Chart (transcription/figure blocks), though both appeared in the delinquent tax exhibits and the Recovery Chart reflected amounts for taxing units.
- The trial court found the written Final Judgment did not reflect the judgment it rendered and issued two nunc pro tunc judgments (First and Second) to correct these clerical omissions and to transcribe the taxing-unit recovery amounts correctly.
- Appellant Cohen appealed, arguing the nunc pro tunc corrections were improper because the delinquent-tax exhibits were not part of the signed form of judgment and therefore could not be used to create a clerical error justification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the trial court properly entered nunc pro tunc judgments to correct clerical errors | Nunc pro tunc may correct clerical mistakes; judge may rely on written documents and personal recollection; delinquent tax records show amounts owed and support corrections | Exhibits that were not attached to/specified in the signed judgment cannot be used to create a clerical error justifying nunc pro tunc relief | Trial court has inherent power to correct clerical transcription errors; nunc pro tunc entries were proper based on documents and judge's recollection |
| 2. Whether Houston ISD was awarded judgment in the Final Judgment | Final Judgment awarded recovery to the defined "Plaintiff Taxing Units," which incorporates intervenors like HISD; Recovery Chart lists HISD amounts | Cohen contends HISD was not listed on page one and thus was not awarded judgment until the revised order | HISD was part of the Plaintiff Taxing Units and was reflected in the Recovery Chart; omission on page one was typographical and properly corrected nunc pro tunc |
| 3. Whether HCCS was awarded and whether omission from the Recovery Chart required correction | Delinquent tax statements (prima facie under Tex. Prop. Tax Code §33.47) and judge's recollection show HCCS was owed amounts; omission was transcriptional | Cohen contends HCCS was not included in the recovery blocks and thus not awarded | Trial court properly concluded omission was clerical; second nunc pro tunc judgment correctly added HCCS recoveries to reflect the judgment rendered |
| 4. Whether the trial court abused discretion or committed reversible error | Corrections reflect clerical transcription errors supported by exhibits and the court's recollection; prima facie proof established taxing units’ entitlements | Appellant asserts errors probably altered judgment and prejudice his rights | Appellant failed to show reversible error or abuse of discretion; judgments affirmed absent clear abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Escobar v. Escobar, 711 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. 1986) (nunc pro tunc corrects clerical mistakes in judgment compared to judgment rendered)
- Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Ferguson, 471 S.W.2d 28 (Tex. 1971) (recognizing court power to correct clerical errors)
- Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard articulated)
- Davis v. City of Austin, 632 S.W.2d 331 (Tex. 1982) (delinquent tax records constitute prima facie proof of amounts due)
- Claxton v. Lake Fork Water Control & Imp. Dist. No. 1, 220 S.W.3d 537 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006) (trial judge’s recollection and written documents can supply evidence for nunc pro tunc relief)
- Hernandez v. Lopez, 288 S.W.3d 180 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (discussing purpose and scope of nunc pro tunc relief)
- SLT Dealer Group, Ltd. v. AmeriCredit Fin. Servs., Inc., 336 S.W.3d 822 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (transcription errors involving monetary amounts are clerical and correctable nunc pro tunc)