Rudolph Martin Jr. a/k/a Rudolph Okeith Martin Jr. v. Matagorda County, City of Bay City, Coastal Plains Groundwater Conservation District, Matagorda County Conservation & Reclamation District, Matagorda County Drainage District # 01, Matagorda County Hospital District, Port of Bay City Authority — Order

NUMBER 13-26-00578-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
RUDOLPH MARTIN JR. A/K/A
RUDOLPH OKEITH MARTIN JR., 	Appellant,
v.
MATAGORDA COUNTY, CITY OF
BAY CITY, COASTAL PLAINS
GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICT, MATAGORDA COUNTY
CONSERVATION & RECLAMATION
DISTRICT, MATAGORDA COUNTY
DRAINAGE DISTRICT # 01,
MATAGORDA COUNTY HOSPITAL
DISTRICT, PORT OF BAY CITY
AUTHORITY, 	Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE 23RD DISTRICT COURT
OF MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS

2
ORDER FOR JURISDICTIONAL BRIEFING
Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West
Order Per Curiam
In this property tax appeal, appellant has filed six duplicitous motions, each entitled
differently but requesting the same relief: a permanent stay of the trial court’s judgment
pending appeal. We granted a stay pending appellees’ response. Appellees responded
consenting to a stay pending compliance with a payment plan apparently entered by the
parties. However, appellees request the right to lift the stay in the event appellant
breaches the payment plan.
We are obligated to review sua sponte issues affecting our jurisdiction over an
appeal. See Haynes & Boone, LLP v. NFTD, LLC, 631 S.W.3d 65, 71 (Tex. 2021);
Hitchcock Indus. Dev. Corp. v. Cressman Tubular Products Corp., 698 S.W.3d 29, 32
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2024, pet. denied). We do not have jurisdiction over
cases that are nonjusticiable for lack of a live controversy. See Tex. Dep’t of Family &
Protective Servs. v. Grassroots Leadership, Inc., 717 S.W.3d 854, 867 (Tex. 2025).
Relevant here, the Tax Code provides the following:
Property may not be seized and sold and a suit may not be filed to collect a
delinquent tax subject to an installment agreement unless the property
owner:
(1) fails to make a payment as required by the agreement;
(2) fails to pay other property taxes collected by the unit when due as
required by the collector; or
(3) breaches any other condition of the agreement.

3
TEX . TAX CODE § 33.02(d). Given the parties appear to have entered an installment
agreement for which a breach has yet occurred, it is unclear to us how a justiciable
controversy remains between the parties. See Overdeer v. Travis Cnty., No. 03-05-
00179-CV, 2005 WL 2650144, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 16, 2005, no pet.)
(explaining that entry of a post-judgment installment agreement extinguished the case or
controversy between the parties).
Given the foregoing, we direct the parties to brief whether we have jurisdiction over
this appeal. Appellant’s brief is due within ten days from the date of this order, and
appellees’ brief is due ten days thereafter.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed on the
16th day of October, 2026.