York v. State
373 S.W.3d 32
Tex.2012Background
- York filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy prior to the 2007 justice court proceeding over a 1981 York trailer with missing VIN.
- DPS seized the trailer and the Chapter 47 proceeding determined possession in favor of the State, not York, raising questions of ownership.
- York sought to void the justice court judgment under the automatic stay and asserted a takings claim for the loss of use of the trailer.
- The trial court held the judgment voidable, not void, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the court of appeals reversed on voidness and issue framing but preserved extrinsic-evidence limits.
- The court reverses, holding a judgment violating the automatic stay is void and subject to collateral attack; it remands for fact-finding on the police-power exception and York’s takings claim is precluded by available remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does automatic stay violation render the judgment void and collateral attackable? | York asserts the stay voids the judgment and allows collateral attack. | State/County argue only voidable aspects or no collateral attackability under Texas rules. | Yes; judgment void and collateral attackable. |
| Is collateral attack allowed where extrinsic evidence is needed to prove stay violation? | York contends extrinsic evidence can establish stay violation. | State/County rely on no-extrinsic-evidence rule to bar attack. | Extraterritorial evidence permitted; no-extrinsic-evidence rule does not bar attack here. |
| Does Chapter 47 police-power analysis place the Chapter 47 proceeding within the automatic stay? | York argues the proceeding was used to deprive him of property in violation of the stay, not for legitimate police power. | State/County contend police-power exception applies or factual questions resolve ownership and purpose. | Fact issues remain; remand for trial on ownership and police-power justification. |
| Is York’s takings claim premature or precluded given available remedies? | York may pursue takings damages for wrongful taking. | Remedies via return of property or other processes preclude takings claim here. | Premature/ precluded due to potential return of property; remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1940) (Congressional power in bankruptcy renders stay-violating judgments void and collaterally attackable)
- Continental Casing Corp. v. Samedan Oil Corp., () (stay-violation treated as void, not voidable)
- Sikes v. Global Marine, Inc., 881 F.2d 176 (5th Cir. 1989) (bankruptcy stay exceptions and staying power related to limitations and modifications)
- Templeton v. Ferguson, 33 S.W.2d 327 (Tex. 1932) (exceptions to collateral attack where court lacked power)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Labuzan, 579 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2009) (automatic stay as a fundamental debtor protection)