Tex. Codes » Property Code · TITLE 5. EXEMPT PROPERTY AND LIENS · SUBTITLE B. LIENS · CHAPTER 53. MECHANIC'S, CONTRACTOR'S, OR MATERIALMAN'S LIEN
Texas Codes

Tex. Prop. Code § 53.103 (2026)

Lien On Reserved Funds

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

Sec. 53.103. LIEN ON RESERVED FUNDS. A claimant has a lien on the reserved funds if the claimant:

(1) sends the notices required by this chapter in the time and manner required; and

(2) except as allowed by Section 53.057(f), files an affidavit claiming a lien not later than the 30th day after the earliest of the date:

(A) the work is completed;

(B) the original contract is terminated; or

(C) the original contractor abandons performance under the original contract.

Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3545, ch. 576, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984.

Amended by:

Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1003 (H.B. 629), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005.

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 499 (H.B. 1390), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2011.

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 690 (H.B. 2237), Sec. 18, eff. January 1, 2022.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Page v. Structural Wood Components, Inc., 102 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Page v. Structural Wood Components, Inc., 102 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. 2003). · cites it 2× “" Tex. Prop. Code § 53.103. In this case, the owner terminated the general contractor and hired other contractors to complete the project.”
Bond v. Kagan-Edelman Enter., 985 S.W.2d 253 (Tex. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “Tex. Prop.Code § 53.103. If the owner does not comply with Subchapter E, the persons who make claims under this subchapter have a lien for the amount that should have been retained from the original contract; and, the owner is liable for the amount that should have been re-tamed.”
Page v. Marton Roofing, Inc., 102 S.W.3d 733 (Tex. 2003). · cites it 2× “Marton Roofing subsequently filed suit, arguing that Page was liable for the unpaid invoices under both the statutory retainage provision of Texas Property Code § 53.103 and the fund-trapping provision of Texas Property Code § 53.”
Stolz v. Honeycutt, 42 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. App. 2001). “Tex. PROP.Code Ann. § 53.103. It is undisputed on appeal that Honeycutt gave the proper notice, but it is also clear that Honeycutt failed to file his affidavit until more than 30 days after completion of the work (work completed on June 7; affidavit filed on August 14).”
Long Q. Pham & Thao M. Silva v. Harris Cnty. Rentals, L.L.C., 455 S.W.3d 702 (Tex. App. 2014). “Tex. PROP.Code Ann. § 53.103 (Vernon Supp.”
Hadnot v. Wenco Distributors, 961 S.W.2d 232 (Tex. App. 1997). “Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 53.103 (Vernon 1995).”
Page v. Marton Roofing, Inc., 102 S.W.3d 750 (Tex. App. 2002). “See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 53.103(2) (Vernon 1995).”
Morrell Masonry Supply, Inc. v. Loeb, 349 S.W.3d 664 (Tex. App. 2011). “” Tex. Prop.Code § 53.103. Accordingly, Morrell’s failure to comply with the notice requirements also defeated its claim to the retainage funds.”
Astra Ventures, LLC v. Serv. Steel Warehouse Co., L.P. (Tex. App. 2025). “TEX. PROP. CODE § 53.103; Page, 102 S.W.3d at 721 .”
Page, Herman v. Marton Roofing, Inc. (Tex. App. 2002). “See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 53.103 (2) (Vernon 1995).”
Roberto Melendez v. David & Helen De Lemos (Tex. App. 2008). “See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 53.103 (2) (Vernon 2007).”
K & N Builders Sales, Inc. v. Dennis Baldwin & Rosella Baldwin (Tex. App. 2013). “Moreover, K&N has provided, and we have located, nothing in the Property Code or its case law, or in the contract between the Baldwins and GSG, or otherwise, that requires any written notice or accounting to terminate, or to prove such termination for purposes of section 53.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Tex. Prop. Code § 53.103(2) — 1 case
Page v. Marton Roofing, Inc., 102 S.W.3d 750 (Tex. App. 2002). “See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 53.103(2) (Vernon 1995).”
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.