CPRC Chapter 12 and the Problems of Interpretation
Read Time: 1 minBackground: The Republic of Texas
For those not familiar with the issue, there was a group that achieved notoriety some years ago known as the Republic of Texas. Briefly, they contended that, because Texas was a separate nation at the time of its admission to the United States, the legislation authorizing the entry of Texas into the Union was illegal. These individuals went so far as to create their own version of a court system and began issuing “judgments” against people who opposed them. In general, the victims were government officials who had attempted to shut down the activities of this group, but instead found themselves saddled with fake liens, claims, and judgments.
Passage of Chapter 12
To combat this problem, the Texas legislature felt it necessary to pass legislation which criminalized the filing of counterfeit judgments and liens. In addition, the legislature tinkered with the civil system’s existing methods for dealing with illegitimate filings (sanctions, etc.) by passing Chapter 12 of the CPRC. A person may not use a document with the “knowledge” that it is “fraudulent,” with the intent that it be given the same effect as a court document, and with the intent of harming another person. The offender is subject to a $10,000 fine or actual damages, plus costs, attorneys fees, and exemplary damages.
The problem with the wording of Chapter 12 is that it does not clearly restrict its scope to counterfeit or bogus court filings. Instead, it seeks to address what it calls “fraudulent” documents without ever defining the exact meaning. Of course, the legislative history behind the statute clearly references such things as “bogus judgments from nonexistent courts” and “impersonating civil servants,” which makes it plain that judgments and liens issued by real courts were not intended to be included. Unfortunately, Chapter 12 failed to contain language excluding actions obtained by real courts. It is equally disconcerting that Texas courts are not always accepting of legislative history in order to explain the meaning of a statute.
The Current Controversy
Because judgments obtained from real courts are not expressly excluded, activist consumer attorneys have begun attacking pleadings filed by creditors, even judgments obtained by mistake. The consumers take the position that the statute punishes court filings that are fraudulent and that it is a question of intent as to whether the filing was fraudulent. As we can all imagine, given the current economic atmosphere and the increasing numbers of individuals who are either in default or concerned about their financial futures, it is especially troublesome that juries can review our pleadings to determine the intent behind the filing.