Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Council urged to deny deed-correction claim tied to 2014 $10 tax-resale bid
Loading...
Summary
City legal staff recommended denying Mr. McBride’s request to correct a deed that he says derives from a 2014 high sealed bid of $10; staff concluded the parcel sold by the appraisal district was a distinct 50x50 parcel (parcel 1895) and that the $10 bid does not entitle him to an asserted additional ~16.5 acres.
City legal counsel presented a detailed history and recommended the Lampasas City Council deny a deed-correction request from a Mr. McBride, who asserts a 2014 $10 sealed-bid purchase entitles him to additional acreage.
Legal counsel said the parcel at issue was sold through the county appraisal district’s resale process (identified in the packet as parcel 1895) and was not conveyed under the city’s local-government sale procedures. Counsel reviewed the 2013–2014 timeline, the appraisal-district award letter, and the record showing the city’s acceptance of a high bidder at that time. Counsel said the bid packet was not retained in city records and that Texas property-tax resale law places responsibility on bidders to investigate title, location and condition prior to bidding.
Counsel addressed Mr. McBride’s argument that additional acreage (approximately 16.5 acres along Silver Creek, as asserted by Mr. McBride in submitted materials) should be covered by his bid, and counsel described that claim as legally and factually unsupported given the appraisal-district sale mechanics, the original bid description, and the absence of documentation in city records to show the bid included the additional acreage. Counsel also cited Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §16.004 on the four-year statute of limitations for actions on certain real-property claims, noting the statute may limit a claimant’s remedies although it does not preclude the council from reviewing the claim.
After staff argument, the council moved, seconded and voted in favor of staff’s recommendation (voice vote recorded in the transcript as 'Aye'). No new deed conveyance was ordered during the open session.
The city’s packet includes a county appraisal-district award letter and a hand-drawn map submitted by Mr. McBride; staff told council the map did not correlate to recorded parcel information. Staff encouraged Mr. McBride to seek private legal counsel if he believes he has a claim, and the city recommended denial of the deed-correction request at this time.
