Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alejandro Villeda owned three tracts of land in Hidalgo County that were subject to a 2019 tax foreclosure judgment for $35,358.33 in delinquent taxes. In August 2020, TLF REO, LLC purchased the property at a tax lien foreclosure sale for $31,234.51. The deed preserved Villeda’s statutory right to redeem. TLF later conveyed the property to HK Reo, LLC (HKR) in October 2021.
In January 2023, nearly three years after the foreclosure sale, Villeda sued the tax lienholder’s successor for breach of contract, alleging he had reached an agreement to finance his tax payments. He sought damages and a declaration of superior title to the property. HKR intervened with counterclaims for quiet title and declaratory relief, asserting the statute of limitations barred Villeda’s challenge to the sale.
HKR moved for summary judgment in July 2023. Villeda did not file an answer until December 15, 2023—only three days before the December 18 summary judgment hearing and without obtaining leave of court. Villeda’s answer asserted six counterclaims against HKR, including suit to set aside the tax sale. HKR moved to strike the answer as untimely under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 63. The trial court initially denied the motion but later granted it along with HKR’s summary judgment motion.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly struck Villeda’s answer under Rule 63. Rule 63 allows parties to amend pleadings without leave of court at times that do not surprise the opposing party, but any pleadings filed within seven days of trial must obtain leave of court first. The court determined that a summary judgment hearing constitutes a “trial” for Rule 63 purposes. Villeda filed his answer only three days before the summary judgment hearing and did not seek or obtain leave of court. Because the answer asserted new causes of action against HKR for the first time and HKR objected to the late filing, the trial court reasonably concluded the answer was prejudicial on its face.
On the summary judgment issue, the appellate court found Villeda had waived appellate review entirely by failing to adequately brief the merits. Villeda’s appellate brief contained no substantive argument regarding HKR’s summary judgment motion—no discussion of the evidence, causes of action, or grounds raised by HKR. Instead, the brief focused exclusively on whether the answer was properly struck. An appellate court cannot make a party’s arguments for him and then adjudicate based on those invented arguments.
Key Takeaways
- Summary judgment hearings constitute “trials” under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 63, triggering the seven-day notice requirement for filing or amending pleadings.
- A trial court has discretion to strike pleadings filed within seven days of trial without leave of court, particularly when the pleadings assert new causes of action and the opposing party objects.
- An appellate court will not review summary judgment rulings when the appellant fails to substantively brief the merits, instead relying on conclusory statements.
- The right to redeem property after a tax lien foreclosure sale is subject to applicable statutory time limits and cannot be revived through untimely pleadings raising new claims.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces procedural discipline in tax foreclosure litigation. Villeda’s case illustrates how procedural defaults—filing an answer three days before trial without leave of court—can be fatal to a party’s claims, regardless of the merits. By the time Villeda sought to challenge the foreclosure sale, Texas law had given him a specific window to do so, and allowing him to introduce new claims years later through an untimely answer would undermine the finality that tax lien purchasers depend on.
For practitioners, the decision clarifies that Rule 63’s procedural requirements apply even when the trial event is a summary judgment hearing, not a full trial. It also underscores the appellate court’s expectation that parties adequately brief their issues on appeal—vague references to legal standards without substantive analysis will result in waiver and forfeiture of appellate review, leaving lower court judgments undisturbed.