Supreme Court

23-0875 - Thompson v. Landry 

Thompson v. Landry

  • Case number: 23-0875
  • Legal category: Constitutional Law
  • Subtype: Due Process
  • Set for oral argument: January 16, 2025

Case Summary

The issue in this case is whether a tax sale of real property can be challenged on due process grounds if the original owner had notice of the tax sale before the Tax Code’s limitations period ended.

Mae Landry inherited her grandmother’s interest in a twelve-acre property. Tax authorities obtained a 2015 default judgment, foreclosing liens on the property to collect delinquent property taxes. They served all defendants by posting notice on the courthouse door. Cindy Thompson later purchased the property at a tax sale. Landry lived on the property before and after the sale, and her husband paid rent to Thompson until Thompson asked the Landrys to vacate. Ten years after the sale of the property, Landry sued to void the default judgment and to quiet title, alleging that citation by posting violated her constitutional right to procedural due process.

The trial court granted Landry’s summary judgment motion and declared the default judgment void, denying Thompson’s summary judgment motions based on limitations and laches. The court of appeals reversed, holding that there is a fact issue as to whether Landry’s due process rights were violated.

Thompson petitioned for review, arguing that the court of appeals incorrectly applied Texas Supreme Court precedent. Thompson argues that Landry had actual notice of the default judgment, and this notice prevents her due process claim. She also argues that Landry’s claim is barred by the Tax Code, which imposes a two-year limitations period on claims disputing title against purchasers if the original owner lived in the property as her homestead when a delinquent tax suit was first filed. The Supreme Court granted the petition.     

 

Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case.