🚨 When a Name Match Isn’t Enough: A Hard Lesson on Tax Sale Proceeds Misidentification

In the nuanced world of Texas tax foreclosure law, a recent historical disciplinary case highlights a costly mistake that all attorneys, investors, and excess proceeds consultants should study carefully. It serves as a cautionary tale: never assume a name match means a legal match—especially when dealing with money held in a court’s registry.

🧾 Case Overview: The Gonzalez Mix-Up

In Cause No. 90-10-6158-C, filed in Cameron County’s 197th Judicial District Court, the State of Texas sued Eloy F. Gonzalez Jr. and Albina P. Gonzalez for unpaid property taxes. A default judgment in 1991 resulted in the property being sold at a tax foreclosure auction, which generated $3,087.94 in excess proceeds—money left over after satisfying the tax lien and court costs.

Years later, in 1999, attorney Brian C. Taylor contacted a woman named Albina Gonzalez in San Antonio and offered to help her claim those funds. She agreed, and Taylor filed a claim for the excess proceeds on her behalf.

The court approved the disbursement and Taylor issued her a check for $2,055.62, retaining the rest as legal fees.

But there was a fatal error.

⚠️ The Legal Misstep: Misidentification of the Real Party in Interest

The correct party named in the 1991 foreclosure judgment wasn’t the San Antonio woman Taylor represented. The true party was Albina P. Gonzalez of San Benito, Texas. Despite sharing the same name, the two women were completely unrelated.

By failing to investigate the origin of the lawsuit or verify the client’s legal connection to the property, Taylor disbursed funds to the wrong person—someone with no legal right to the money.

⚖️ Rule Violations and Professional Discipline

As a result of the misidentification, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline charged Taylor with violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct:

🛑 Rule 1.14(c) – Improper Disbursement of Funds

“A lawyer shall disburse funds in his trust or escrow account only to those persons entitled to receive them by virtue of the representation or by law.”

Taylor violated this by paying someone who had no legal claim to the proceeds.

🛑 Rule 8.04(a)(1) – General Professional Misconduct

“A lawyer shall not violate the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.”

The Commission sought disciplinary sanctions, including reprimand, suspension, or even disbarment—along with restitution to the real Ms. Gonzalez.

🧠 Takeaway for Legal and Real Estate Professionals

This case is a stark reminder that in tax sale recovery work:

• Do not rely on name alone.

• Always cross-reference the defendant(s) in the judgment with public records and the original tax suit documents.

• Use skip tracing and title research to verify relationships, especially in inherited claims.

• Missteps can lead not only to professional discipline, but to malpractice liability and criminal exposure.

📌 Final Thoughts

Whether you’re an attorney, investor, or foreclosure consultant, your credibility and integrity depend on diligence, not assumptions. As this case shows, a “simple” excess proceeds claim can become a career-altering disciplinary action if the wrong party gets paid.

If you help families recover overages, make sure you follow proper chain-of-title verification, inheritance laws, and standing. Because when it comes to court registry funds, the court doesn’t care about what looks right—only what is right.