Tex. Codes » Property Code · TITLE 5. EXEMPT PROPERTY AND LIENS · SUBTITLE B. LIENS · CHAPTER 52. JUDGMENT LIEN
Texas Codes

Tex. Prop. Code § 52.003 (2026)

Contents Of Abstract

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 52.003. CONTENTS OF ABSTRACT. (a) An abstract of a judgment must show:

(1) the names of the plaintiff and defendant;

(2) the birthdate of the defendant, if available to the clerk or justice;

(3) the last three numbers of the driver's license of the defendant, if available;

(4) the last three numbers of the social security number of the defendant, if available;

(5) the number of the suit in which the judgment was rendered;

(6) the defendant's address, or if the address is not shown in the suit, the nature of citation and the date and place of service of citation;

(7) the date on which the judgment was rendered;

(8) the amount for which the judgment was rendered and the balance due;

(9) the amount of the balance due, if any, for child support arrearage; and

(10) the rate of interest specified in the judgment.

(b) An abstract of a judgment may show a mailing address for each plaintiff or judgment creditor.

Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3527, ch. 576, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984. Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 15, Sec. 4.08, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 134, Sec. 2, eff. May 12, 1993.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 143 (S.B. 699), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: Rogers v. Peeler, 271 S.W.3d 372 (Tex. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rogers v. Peeler, 271 S.W.3d 372 (Tex. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “thdate and driver's license number of the defendant if available to the clerk or justice; (3) the number of the suit in which the judgment was rendered; (4) the defendant's address, or if the address is not shown in the suit, the nature of citation and the date and place of…”
MM Steel, L.P. v. Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co., e, 771 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 2014). · cites it 6× “See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 52.003 (Vernon 2007).”
Gordon v. West Houston Trees, Ltd., 352 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 52.003(a) (Vernon Supp.”
Olivares v. Birdie L. Nix Trust, 126 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Tex. PROp.Code Ann. § 52.003 (Vernon 1995).”
Wilson v. Dvorak, 228 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 52.003. “Since a judgment lien is statutorily created, substantial compliance with the statutory requirements is mandatory before a judgment creditor’s lien will attach.”
Gary E. Patterson & Assocs., P.C. v. Holub, 264 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App. 2008). “See Tex. PROp.Code Ann. § 52.003(a)(6). We must next determine if the Holubs and HTC showed, as a matter of law, that Thomas’s $500 payment was such a tender on the agreed judgment, instead of a monetary inducement to enter into settlement discussions in the first place.”
Apostolic Church v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 833 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Appellant also attacks the trial court’s conclusion of law that the abstract of judgment substantially complied with Texas Property Code § 52.003, in that the undisputed evidence shows that the abstract did not state Hayden’s address or the nature of the citation and date and…”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Serv. Temps, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 288 (N.D. Tex. 2011). · cites it 2× “(citing Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 52.003). El Paso ISD held that “[t]his difference is dispositive.”
Hoffman, McBryde & Co., PC v. Heyland, 74 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. App. 2002). “Tex. PROP.Code Ann. § 52.003(a) (Vernon 1995) (emphasis added).”
United States of Am., on Behalf of Small Bus. Admin. v. Com. Tech., Inc., Com. Tech., Inc., 354 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2003). “Tex. Prop.Code § 52.003(a)(6). 4 . The magistrate determined that the government was not entitled to relief under the FDPCA because the original promissory note between Caddo and CTI was not a "debt” owing to the United States as defined by the federal statute because Caddo was…”
Allied First Nat'l Bank of Mesquite v. Jones, 766 S.W.2d 800 (Tex. App. 1988). “TEX.PROP.CODE ANN. § 52.003 (Vernon 1984).”
Austin v. Coface Seguro de Credito Mexico, S.A. de C.V., 506 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App. 2016). “See Tex. PROP. Code ANN. § 52.003; Gordon, 352 S.”
Show all 34 citing cases →
— Tex. Prop. Code § 52.003(a) — 10 cases
Gordon v. West Houston Trees, Ltd., 352 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. App. 2011). “Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 52.003(a) (Vernon Supp.”
MM Steel, L.P. v. Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co., e, 771 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 2014). “See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 52.003 (Vernon 2007).”
Hoffman, McBryde & Co., PC v. Heyland, 74 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. App. 2002). “Tex. PROP.Code Ann. § 52.003(a) (Vernon 1995) (emphasis added).”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Serv. Temps, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 288 (N.D. Tex. 2011). “(citing Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 52.003). El Paso ISD held that “[t]his difference is dispositive.”
DeVoll v. Johnston (5th Cir. 2002).
— Tex. Prop. Code § 52.003(a)(1) — 2 cases
Wilson v. Dvorak, 228 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. App. 2007). “Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 52.003. “Since a judgment lien is statutorily created, substantial compliance with the statutory requirements is mandatory before a judgment creditor’s lien will attach.”
Herman v. Jackson (In Re Herman), 315 B.R. 399 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2004).
— Tex. Prop. Code § 52.003(a)(5) — 1 case
Gordon v. West Houston Trees, Ltd., 352 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. App. 2011). “Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 52.003(a) (Vernon Supp.”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 52.003(a)(6) — 5 cases
Gary E. Patterson & Assocs., P.C. v. Holub, 264 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App. 2008). “See Tex. PROp.Code Ann. § 52.003(a)(6). We must next determine if the Holubs and HTC showed, as a matter of law, that Thomas’s $500 payment was such a tender on the agreed judgment, instead of a monetary inducement to enter into settlement discussions in the first place.”
United States of Am., on Behalf of Small Bus. Admin. v. Com. Tech., Inc., Com. Tech., Inc., 354 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2003). “Tex. Prop.Code § 52.003(a)(6). 4 . The magistrate determined that the government was not entitled to relief under the FDPCA because the original promissory note between Caddo and CTI was not a "debt” owing to the United States as defined by the federal statute because Caddo was…”
EP Energy E&P Co., L.P v. Maltsberger/Storey Ranch, LLC (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2020).
United States v. Cmercl Technol Inc (5th Cir. 2004).
Herman v. Jackson (In Re Herman), 315 B.R. 399 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2004).
— Tex. Prop. Code § 52.003(a)(8) — 1 case
EP Energy E&P Co., L.P v. Maltsberger/Storey Ranch, LLC (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2020).
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.