Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Records topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident urges Travis County review after alleged fraudulent property filings

Travis County Commissioners Court · July 7, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Travis County resident told commissioners that a "notice of fraudulent filing" entered the real property records and that ownership records were changed on 04/30/2026 while related litigation was pending, and asked the court to review routing, notice and record-preservation procedures.

Jacqueline Harrington, a Travis County resident, told the Commissioners Court that a "notice of fraudulent filing" was entered into the county real property records and that county ownership records were later changed on April 30, 2026 while a related case was pending at the 15th Court of Appeals.

"A notice of, fraudulent filing was filed into the real property records identifying concerns about my property and deeds that were signed that did not bear our signatures," Harrington said, urging the court to review whether such notices are properly routed and whether taxpayers receive required notice before protests are dismissed. She said exemptions were removed and appraisal protests were canceled without meaningful notice to her family while a civil case remained pending.

Harrington said she has raised the issue with the county clerk and identified the presiding judge in her case as Amy Meacham; she asked the court to examine whether county record-preservation procedures and the administrative process protect the integrity of public records. "Public confidence depends on the accuracy of records, transparency, procedures, and accountability," she said.

The Commissioners Court did not take action on the specific case during the meeting; Harrington framed the request as an ask for oversight and procedural review rather than a request for the court to decide her civil case. The court thanked Harrington for coming and did not announce follow-up steps during the session.

The court moved on to other agenda items after the comment period.