Sec. 12.008. CANCELLATION OF LIS PENDENS. (a) On the motion of a party or other person interested in the result of or in property affected by a proceeding in which a lis pendens has been recorded and after notice to each affected party, the court hearing the action may cancel the lis pendens at any time during the proceeding, whether in term time or vacation, if the court determines that the party seeking affirmative relief can be adequately protected by the deposit of money into court or by the giving of an undertaking.
(b) If the cancellation of a lis pendens is conditioned on the payment of money, the court may order the cancellation when the party seeking the cancellation pays into the court an amount equal to the total of:
(1) the judgment sought;
(2) the interest the court considers likely to accrue during the proceeding; and
(3) costs.
(c) If the cancellation of a lis pendens is conditioned on the giving of an undertaking, the court may order the cancellation when the party seeking the cancellation gives a guarantee of payment of a judgment, plus interest and costs, in favor of the party who recorded the lis pendens. The guarantee must equal twice the amount of the judgment sought and have two sufficient sureties approved by the court. Not less than two days before the day the guarantee is submitted to the court for approval, the party seeking the cancellation shall serve the attorney for the party who recorded the lis pendens a copy of the guarantee and notice of its submission to the court.
Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3491, ch. 576, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case:
In re Miller, 433 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014).
In re Miller, 433 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014).
· cites it 2× “See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 12.008 (West 2004).”
Khraish v. Hamed, 762 S.W.2d 906 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988).
· cites it 4× “TEX. PROP.CODE ANN. § 12.008 (Vernon 1984).”
In re Collins, 172 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005).
“See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 12.008(a). 35 . See Prudential Ins.”
C. Borunda Holdings, Inc. v. Lake Proctor Irrigation Auth. of Comanche Cnty., 540 S.W.3d 548 (Tex. 2018).
“Lake Proctor contends that if Borunda wanted to preserve its claim for an offset, it should have deposited the funds with the trial court and petitioned the court to cancel the lis pendens under the Property Code, see TEX. PROP. CODE § 12.008(a), instead of paying the amount…”
Graham-Rutledge & Co. v. Nadia Corp., 281 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009).
“See generally Tex. PROp.Code Ann. § 12.008 (Vernon 2004) (Cancellation of a lis pendens may be granted on the motion of a party interested in property affected by a proceeding in which a lis pendens has been recorded and “the court may cancel the lis pendens at any time during…”
Jay H. Cohen v. Sandcastle Homes, Inc., 469 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015).
· cites it 2× “” TEX. PROP. CODE § 12.008. In other words, 20 without regard to the merits of a real property claim, a party can unburden real property by providing security in its place.”
Thornburg v. Lynch (In re Thornburg), 277 B.R. 719 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2002).
“When a lis pendens is not authorized under Texas law, the court need not follow the procedures prescribed by Tex.Prop.Code Ann. § 12.008 to cancel it.”
Helmsley-Spear of Texas, Inc. v. Blanton, 699 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. App. 1985).
“While those are undeniably the prescribed statutory methods for can-celling a lis pendens, Tex.Prop. Code Ann. § 12.008, they are not applicable in this case.”
In re Huffines Retail Partners, L.P., 978 F.3d 128 (5th Cir. 2020).
“, Tex. Prop. Code § 12.008, but our panel is not tasked with determining whether to impose or expunge a lis pendens.”
Garza v. Pope, 949 S.W.2d 7 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997).
“Garza seeks a cancellation under Texas Property Code § 12.008(1) because the lis pendens, filed only on the 20 acre subdivision which is merely collaterally involved in the lawsuit, is void; and (2) because this vehicle is not valid as a judgment lien.”
Jordan v. Hagler, 179 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005).
“Tex. PROp.Code Ann. § 12.008 (Vernon 2004).”
Tex. Prop. Code § 12.008(1): 1 case
Garza v. Pope, 949 S.W.2d 7 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997).
“Garza seeks a cancellation under Texas Property Code § 12.008(1) because the lis pendens, filed only on the 20 acre subdivision which is merely collaterally involved in the lawsuit, is void; and (2) because this vehicle is not valid as a judgment lien.”
Tex. Prop. Code § 12.008(a): 4 cases
In re Collins, 172 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005).
“See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 12.008(a). 35 . See Prudential Ins.”
C. Borunda Holdings, Inc. v. Lake Proctor Irrigation Auth. of Comanche Cnty., 540 S.W.3d 548 (Tex. 2018).
“Lake Proctor contends that if Borunda wanted to preserve its claim for an offset, it should have deposited the funds with the trial court and petitioned the court to cancel the lis pendens under the Property Code, see TEX. PROP. CODE § 12.008(a), instead of paying the amount…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.