lien claim in Texas

2009See Conn, Sherrod & Co., 535 S.W.2d at 34 ; see also Goldman, 341 S.W.2d at 158 .

2009See Conn, Sherrod & Co., 535 S.W.2d at 34 ; see also Goldman, 341 S.W.2d at 158 .

2009See Conn, Sherrod & Co., 535 S.W.2d at 34 ; see also Goldman, 341 S.W.2d at 158 .

2009See Conn, Sherrod & Co., 535 S.W.2d at 34 ; see also Goldman, 341 S.W.2d at 158 .

2022Accordingly, we rejected the materialman’s argument that written notice was not required when the owner had actual knowledge of the claim, explaining that “[w]ritten notice is certain and definite information upon which the owner must act.” Id.; see also Moore v. Brenham Ready Mix, Inc., 463 S.W.3d 109 , 114–16 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (holding that actual notice of a lien claim did not qualify as substantial compliance 27 with the mechanic’s lien statute’s requirement of “timely written notice”).

2022Accordingly, we rejected the materialman’s argument that written notice was not required when the owner had actual knowledge of the claim, explaining that “[w]ritten notice is certain and definite information upon which the owner must act.” Id.; see also Moore v. Brenham Ready Mix, Inc., 463 S.W.3d 109 , 114–16 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (holding that actual notice of a lien claim did not qualify as substantial compliance 27 with the mechanic’s lien statute’s requirement of “timely written notice”).

2020See Cardenas, 428 S.W.3d at 133 (“Under the fraudulent lien statute, the trial court does not rule on the validity of the underlying claim creating the lien or rule on any substantive evidentiary claim.”).

2015Cf. Cardenas, 428 S.W.3d at 133 (“Under the fraudulent lien statute, the trial court does not rule on the validity of the underlying claim creating the lien or rule on any substantive evidentiary claim.”); Samshi Homes, 321 S.W.3d at 667 -68 & n. 5 (explaining that scope of fraudulent lien statute does not include “substantive eviden-tiary claims”).

2015Cf. Cardenas, 428 S.W.3d at 133 (“Under the fraudulent lien statute, the trial court does not rule on the validity of the underlying claim creating the lien or rule on any substantive evidentiary claim.”); Samshi Homes, 321 S.W.3d at 667 -68 & n. 5 (explaining that scope of fraudulent lien statute does not include “substantive eviden-tiary claims”).

2014See id. at 667-68 .

2003See Valdez , 842 S.W.2d at 276 ; Inman , 485 S.W.2d at 374 ; Wood , 420 S.W.2d at 428 .

1994Id.

2022Patterson & Associates, P.C. v. Holub, the court assumed that the success of a bona fide purchaser defense depended on whether the underlying lien was valid, but it offered no authority to support this assumption. 264 S.W.3d 180, 187 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied); see also Murray v. Cadle Co., 257 S.W.3d 291, 301 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g) (implying that the validity of a lien factors into whether there is constructive notice of the lien); Gen.

2022Patterson & Associates, P.C. v. Holub, the court assumed that the success of a bona fide purchaser defense depended on whether the underlying lien was valid, but it offered no authority to support this assumption. 264 S.W.3d 180, 187 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied); see also Murray v. Cadle Co., 257 S.W.3d 291, 301 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g) (implying that the validity of a lien factors into whether there is constructive notice of the lien); Gen.

2021Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562, 566 (Tex. 2001).

2019See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 819 . 7 We agree with Founders that the recitation in Founders’ petition of the amount of Schear Hampton’s lien claim is of no moment and is not a judicial admission that Founders owed Schear Hampton the amount of its lien claim.

2019See Beeler v. Jewell (In re Stanton), 303 F.3d 939 , 942–43 (9th Cir. 2002) (concluding that lender’s advance of funds pursuant to future advance clause did not “create” new lien each time an advance was made).

2017See Daughters of Charity Health Servs. v. Linnstaedter, 226 S.W.3d 409, 411 (Tex. 2007) (observing that lien against property “is necessarily a claim against its owner”); McAllen Hosps., L.P. v. Gomez, No. 13-12-00421-CV, 2013 WL 784688 -, at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 28, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that hospital lien is claim against patient).

2017See id.

2015See David Powers Homes, Inc., 355 S.W.3d at 337 .

2015See Marsh v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 888 F. Supp. 2d 805, 812-14 (W.D.

2013Southwest Properties, 989 S.W.2d at 69, 72 .

2013These issues also fail to address the Owner’s alternative basis for summary judgment against the Supplier’s lien claim for the July materials, i.e., the untimely notice. 6 ―Generally speaking, an appellant must attack all independent bases or grounds that fully support a complained-of ruling or judgment.‖ Britton v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676, 681 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).

2009See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 53.052(c) (“Failure of the county clerk to properly record or index a filed affidavit does not invalidate the lien.”); Biffle v. Morton Rubber Indus., Inc., 785 S.W.2d 143, 144 (Tex.1990) (per curiam) (“Since [appellant] satisfied his duty to file timely the cost bond, he should not be penalized for an error once the instrument was in the custody and control of the clerk.”).

2009See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 53.052(c) ("Failure of the county clerk to properly record or index a filed affidavit does not invalidate the lien."); Biffle v. Morton Rubber Indus., Inc., 785 S.W.2d 143, 144 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam) ("Since [appellant] satisfied his duty to file timely the cost bond, he *767 should not be penalized for an error once the instrument was in the custody and control of the clerk.").

2005Epstein and Fidelity argue that the first part of the statute controls, citing the case of Stolz v. Honeycutt, See Stolz v. Honeycutt, 42 S.W.3d 305, 311 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (“An action on the bond must be filed no later than one year after the date on which notice of the bond is served.”).

2004Bragg v. Edwards Aquifer Auth., 71 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Tex. 2002); Pacesetter Pools, Inc. v. Pierce Homes, Inc., 86 S.W.3d 827, 831 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, “If the lien claim arises from a debt incurred by a subcontractor, the claimant must give to the original contractor written notice of the unpaid balance.

2004The claimant must give the notice not later than the 15th day of the second month following each month in which all or part of the claimant’s labor was performed or material delivered . . . .” Id. § 53.056(b) (West 2002). 3 Although Wesco’s lien claim included unpaid balances for materials delivered in March and April, it is clear from the statute that no valid lien could attach for those balances, as their deadlines for notice, May 15 and June 15, respectively, had long since passed.

2004Bragg v. Edwards Aquifer Auth., 71 S.W.3d 729, 734 (Tex. 2002); Pacesetter Pools, Inc. v. Pierce Homes, Inc., 86 S.W.3d 827, 831 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, “If the lien claim arises from a debt incurred by a subcontractor, the claimant must give to the original contractor written notice of the unpaid balance.

2003See Contract Sales Co. v. Skaggs , 612 S.W.2d 652, 653 (Tex. Civ.