Mexia Independent School Dist. v. City of Mexia

• Decision Date: 08 November 1939
• Docket Number: No. 7585.,7585.
• Parties: MEXIA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. v. CITY OF MEXIA.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

133 S.W.2d 118

MEXIA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. v. CITY OF MEXIA.

No. 7585.

Supreme Court of Texas.

November 8, 1939.

Certified Questions from Court of Civil Appeals of Tenth Supreme Judicial District.

Suit by the City of Mexia against A. N. Pigford, the Mexia Independent School District and others to recover delinquent taxes, wherein the Mexia Independent School District answered and by plea of intervention and cross-action, set up a claim against the first named defendant for the taxes due it on the same property, and sought foreclosure of its lien thereon. From a judgment dismissing the plea of intervention, and cross-action and allowing a recovery by plaintiff for its taxes with foreclosure of its lien, the Mexia Independent School District appeals to the Court of Civil Appeals. On questions certified by the Court of Civil Appeals.

Questions answered in accordance with opinion.

A. E. Jackson, of Houston, for appellant.

C. D. Jessup, Jr., of Houston, for appellee.

A. H. Britain, of Wichita Falls, John T. Smith, of Austin, and W. M. Harmon, of Waco, amici curiae.

L. L. Geren, of Groesbeck, for the County.

HICKMAN, Commissioner.

This case is before us upon the following certificate from the Court of Civil Appeals, Tenth District, at Waco.

"The above cause is now pending before this court on motion for rehearing. The facts are stated in our opinion on the original hearing. Our holding, in some respects, is in conflict with the opinion by the Texarkana court in State v. Bagby's Estate, Tex.Civ.App., 126 S.W.2d 687, which was published after the rendition of our decision. For this reason and because of the importance of the questions involved, we deem it advisable to certify to your Honorable court the following questions:

"(1) Upon the facts presented, did we err in holding that Vernon's Annotated Statutes, art. 7345b (Acts 1937, 45th Leg., p. 1494-a, chap. 506) was not unconstitutional?

"(2) Since, upon the filing of plaintiff's petition, the property owning tax debtor was served with citation as provided in Sec. 4 of the Act in question, but failed to answer therein, did the trial court thereby acquire jurisdiction to enter judgment in favor of the defendant, Mexia Independent School District, upon its plea of intervention and cross-action without further notice to the tax debtor? In other words, is Sec. 4 of the Act, which requires each party to the suit, when cited as directed therein, to take notice of all claims and pleadings then on file or thereafter filed in said cause by all other parties therein, valid? In this connection, we call your attention to the holding of the Texarkana Court of Civil Appeals in the case of State v. Bagby's Estate, 126 S.W.2d 687.

"A copy of our opinion and the transcript, together with the agreed statement of facts and copies of all briefs filed herein, will accompany this certificate and be before the court for all purposes."

By an order of this court promulgated on December 9, 1936, Supreme Court Rule No. 15 was amended so as to require that each certificate from a court of civil appeals be accompanied by the opinion or tentative opinion of that court. One of the purposes in promulgating that amendment was to enable this court to facilitate its work and avoid duplications by adopting the opinions or tentative opinions of the courts of civil appeals when they meet with the approval of this court.

We have carefully considered the opinion in the instant case prepared by Justice Alexander and, in so far as it discusses the questions certified to us, we approve and adopt same as our answer to such questions. A copy of that opinion, omitting the heading and also omitting a certain portion thereof which has no particular bearing on the exact questions certified to us, follows and will be published as this court's opinion in answer to the certified questions.

Our categorical answers to the questions are, first, "No," and, second, "Yes."

Opinion of Court of Civil Appeals

This suit was brought by the city of Mexia against A. N. Pigford to recover delinquent taxes alleged to be due for the years 1930 to 1937, inclusive, on certain lots within the city of Mexia belonging to Pigford. The Mexia Independent School District, the State of Texas, and county of Limestone were joined as defendants as provided in Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, art. 7345b (Acts 1937, 45th Leg., p. 1494-a, chap. 506). Pigford and the state of Texas and county of Limestone defaulted. Mexia Independent School District answered and by plea of intervention and cross-action set up a claim against Pigford for taxes due it on the same property and sought foreclosure of its lien thereon. No new citation was served on Pigford on this cross-action. However, the original citation served on him contained the statement that the other taxing units above referred to had been made parties defendant and had been cited to appear and file their claim for taxes, and further recited: "Each party to said suit shall take notice of, and plead and answer to, all claims and pleadings now on file and hereafter filed in said cause by all other parties therein." Upon the trial, the court sustained plaintiff's motion and struck out the plea of intervention and cross-action of Mexia Independent School District and dismissed same and rendered judgment for plaintiff for its taxes with foreclosure of its lien. The Mexia Independent School District alone appealed.

Article 7345b, Vernon's Ann. Civ.St., above referred to, reads, in part, as follows:

"Sec. 2. In any suit hereafter brought by or in behalf of any taxing unit as above defined, for delinquent taxes levied against property by any such taxing unit, the plaintiff may implead as parties defendant any or all other taxing units having delinquent tax claims against such property, or any part thereof, and it shall be the duty of each defendant taxing unit, upon being served with citation as provided by law to appear in said cause and file its claim for delinquent taxes against such property, or any part thereof. It shall be sufficient service upon the State of Texas in any county in such suit to serve citation upon the County Tax Collector charged with the duty of collecting such delinquent taxes due the State and county against such property and it shall be sufficient service upon any other taxing unit to serve citation upon the officer charged with the duty of collecting the taxes of such taxing unit or upon the Mayor, President, or Chairman or the governing body of such taxing unit, or upon the Secretary of such taxing unit. Any taxing unit having any claim for delinquent taxes against such property may waive the issuance and service of citation upon it.

"It shall be mandatory upon any such taxing unit so filing such suit or suits, in all cases where all other taxing units are not impleaded to notify all such taxing units not so impleaded of the filing of such suit or suits, such notice to be given by depositing in the United States mail a registered letter addressed to such taxing unit or units giving the name or names of the plaintiff and defendants, the Court where filed, and a short description of the property involved in said suit so that such taxing units not impleaded may have the opportunity to intervene as herein provided."

"Sec. 4. Each party to such suit shall take notice of, and plead and answer to, all claims and pleadings then on file or thereafter filed in said cause by all other parties therein, and the citation upon each defendant shall so recite.

"Sec. 5. Upon the trial of said cause the Court shall hear evidence upon the reasonable fair value of the property, and shall incorporate in its judgment a finding of the reasonable fair value thereof, in bulk or in parcels, either or both, as the Court may deem proper, which reasonable fair value so found by the Court is hereafter sometimes styled `adjudged value', which `adjudged value' shall be the value as of the date of the trial and shall not necessarily be the value at the time the assessment of the taxes was made; provided, that the burden of proof shall be on the owner or owners of such property in establishing the `fair value' or adjudged value as provided in this section and, provided further that this section shall only apply to taxes which are delinquent for the year 1935 and prior years."

"Sec. 8. No property sold for taxes under decree in such suit shall be sold to the owner of said property, directly or indirectly, or to anyone having an interest therein, or to any party other than a taxing unit which is a party to the suit, for less than the amount of the adjudged value aforesaid of said property or the aggregate amount of the judgments against the property in said suit, whichever is lower, and the net proceeds of any sale of such property made under decree of court in said suit to any party other than any such taxing unit shall belong and be distributed to all taxing units which are parties to the suit which by the judgment in said suit have been found to have tax liens against such property, pro rata and in proportion to the amounts of their respective tax liens as established in said judgment, but any excess in the proceeds of sale over and above the amount necessary to defray the costs of suit and sale and other expenses hereinabove made chargeable against such proceeds, and to fully discharge the judgments against said property, shall be paid to the parties legally entitled to such excess."

Section 9 of the Act provides that if at the tax sale the property is bought in by a taxing unit that is a party to the suit, it shall be held in trust for all taxing units adjudged to have liens on the same; that the property cannot be subsequently sold by such trustee for less than the adjudged value without the consent of all taxing units; and that the proceeds of any such sale shall be prorated among such units in proportion to their interest. It also provides for sale by the sheriff if ...