Ramiro and Edna Ramos, and Federico Salazar, Jr. v. the Unknown Heirs of Tomasa Gonzalez and Narciso Gonzalez
04-14-00667-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 19, 2015Background
- Appellants (Ramiro & Edna Ramos and Federico Salazar Jr.) sued to recover unpaid ad valorem taxes and obtain related relief against the unknown heirs of Tomasa and Narciso Gonzalez; appeal from trial court judgment denying their recovery.
- Appellants received tax delinquency notices beginning in 1983 but did not begin paying the taxes until December 2006, and the record shows no pre-suit demand for reimbursement from cotenants or efforts to identify other heirs.
- Appellants amended their petitions multiple times; the Third Amended Petition first asserted a specific claim for reimbursement of taxes and sought a lien against the property.
- Appellees (the Gonzalez heirs) argue appellants failed to preserve or adequately brief key issues on appeal (violating Tex. R. App. Proc. 38.1(i) and other rules) and that equitable relief for tax reimbursement is unavailable on these facts.
- Appellees contend controlling law requires either proof that a paying cotenant discharged more than his share or an attempt to obtain reimbursement before suing; they argue appellants offered neither.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants are entitled to reimbursement of tax payments made decades after notice | Appellants: paid $100,578.31 in taxes and are entitled to reimbursement from cotenants | Appellees: appellants knew of delinquencies, waited years to pay, never demanded reimbursement or identified heirs pre-suit; equity doesn't favor them | Appellees urge affirmance—claim inadequately pled/preserved and equitable relief improper on these facts |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in refusing judgment for tax reimbursement | Appellants: trial court erred in not awarding reimbursement | Appellees: appellants failed to present correct standard of review and did not preserve issues for appeal | Appellees argue appellate review is barred by briefing defects and invited/forfeited error doctrines |
| Applicability of Chapter 29 (property code) and other theories to recover taxes | Appellants: Chapter 29 is one of several bases for recovery | Appellees: appellants repeatedly stipulated to multiple theories; trial court could choose which theory to apply; appellants never objected | Appellees: court may affirm because appellants invited reliance and failed to show reversible error under any chosen theory |
| Whether failure to effect service after amended petition (Rule 21a) invalidates relief against non-appearing heirs | Appellants: impliedly rely on procedural sufficiency | Appellees: Third Amended Petition added a more onerous claim; absent re-service under Rule 21a, defendants entitled to notice; appellants did not show compliance | Appellees: appellees argue procedural defect supports affirmance or forecloses relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey-Mason v. Mason, 334 S.W.3d 39 (Tex. App. Dallas 2008) (affirming denial of reimbursement where pleadings did not properly seek tax reimbursement)
- Wooley v. West, 391 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. App. Tyler 1965) (cotenant who pays more than his share may seek equitable reimbursement, but proof and notice to cotenants are required)
- Golson v. Fielder, 21 S.W. 173 (Tex. App. 1893) (payment of taxes alone does not constitute ouster or notice to other cotenants absent communicated repudiation)
- M.A.V. Jr. v. Webb Cty. Court at Law, 842 S.W.2d 739 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1992) (failure to adequately brief a point precludes appellate review)
- Prize Energy Resources, L.P. v. Hoskins, 345 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2011) (equitable principles can govern owner contributions for improvements; factual fit matters)
- In re E.A., 287 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2009) (amended pleadings that assert a more onerous claim may require re-service under Rule 21a)