In Gill v. Hill, 688 S.W.3d 863 (Tex. 2024), the Texas Supreme Court considered whether a party claiming that a foreclosure judgment and the subsequent tax sale were void because of a due process violation had the burden to provide evidence of the alleged violation. The Gill parties, twenty years after a 1999 tax foreclosure judgment, sued to have the judgment declared void, arguing that there was constitutionally inadequate notice in the foreclosure proceedings.
The Hill parties, who had obtained title to the property through the tax sale, sought summary judgment based on the Texas Tax Code’s one-year statute of limitations, arguing that the Gill parties' claim was time-barred as it was filed twenty years after the tax sale deed was recorded.
Statute of Limitations and Burden of Proof
The Texas Supreme Court recognized that the Texas Tax Code imposes a one-year statute of limitations for challenges to property sold at tax sales. The Hill parties successfully demonstrated that this statute of limitations defense applied by presenting the sheriff's deed filed and recorded in April 1999, thereby satisfying the requirement to establish the defense conclusively.
The central question in the case was whether the Hill parties were also required to disprove that the 1999 foreclosure judgment was void due to a due process violation. The court held that the burden was on the Gill parties to provide evidence establishing that the foreclosure judgment was void, referencing its earlier decision in Draughon, 627 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. 2021). In Draughon, the court had clarified that when a party challenges the validity of a foreclosure judgment as void, the burden is on the challenging party to present evidence supporting that assertion, rather than requiring the movant to prove the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Analysis of Prior Case Law
The Court also referenced its prior ruling in Mitchell, a case arising from the same 1999 foreclosure proceeding. In Mitchell, the Court had addressed the constitutionality of the notice in the same foreclosure and clarified the types of evidence that could be used in a collateral attack. Although Mitchell found the notice in that case to be constitutionally inadequate, the Court noted that evaluating due process violations is individualized and depends on the specific circumstances of the person to whom the notice was directed. This meant that the court could not take judicial notice of the facts in Mitchell for the current case.
Court's Ruling
In Gill v. Hill, the Texas Supreme Court concluded that the Gill parties failed to present any evidence to challenge the validity of the foreclosure judgment. As a result, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Hill parties was affirmed. However, recognizing significant legal developments since the original foreclosure proceeding, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings in the interest of justice.
Conclusion
Gill v. Hill clarifies that a party challenging a foreclosure judgment based on a due process violation must present evidence to support their claim. Failure to do so will result in the enforcement of the statute of limitations defense, as demonstrated in this case.
