JAMES T. WORTHEN Chief Justice

APPEAL FROM THE 354TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT RAINS COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert L. Roberts, proceeding pro se, appeals the trial court's judgment determining that he violated Section 12.002 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code by failing to release a fraudulent mechanic's lien that he had filed against Heather D. Dixon's homestead. Roberts raises two issues on appeal. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Edsel and Heather D. Dixon were married in 2004. They began improvements on a house located on 4.904 acres (the real property) owned by Heather's father, G. M. Caldwell. Roberts loaned Edsel and Heather $30,000.00 for labor and materials for the improvement of their home pursuant to a contract dated June 6, 2007. Roberts filed a mechanic's lien contract executed by Roberts and Caldwell, which was recorded in volume 489, page 775 of the Official Public Records of Rains County, Texas, on June 27, 2007.

Later, Edsel and Heather attempted to obtain financing to purchase the real property from Caldwell, but they were unable to qualify for a loan to pay both Caldwell and Roberts. Edsel and Heather requested that Roberts release his mechanic's lien so they could purchase the real property from Caldwell. They promised to repay Roberts at an unspecified date in the future. Based upon Edsel's and Heather's promises, Roberts signed, and filed, a release of the lien on November 12, 2009, which was recorded in volume 519, page 520 of the Official Public Records of Rains County, Texas.

Edsel and Heather repaid only $2,000.00 of the $30,000.00 that they owed Roberts. On June 26, 2013, Heather filed for divorce against Edsel. Two days later, on June 28, 2013, Roberts filed an affidavit of mechanic's lien against the real property, which was recorded in volume 562, page 274 of the Official Public Records of Rains County, Texas.

Heather's attorney sent Roberts a letter dated January 30, 2015, demanding that he release the June 2013 mechanic's lien. Her attorney explained that Roberts's 2013 mechanic's lien was fraudulent because he had filed a release of lien in 2009. Further, Heather's attorney stated that unless Roberts released the 2013 mechanic's lien within thirty days, he would file suit against Roberts for damages based on the fraudulent lien filing, and for attorney's fees and costs.

Roberts did not respond to the letter and never filed a release of his 2013 mechanic's lien. Heather filed a motion to compel and for sanctions against Roberts pursuant to Section 12.002 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Following a hearing on April 24, 2015, the trial court found that Roberts violated Section 12.002 by filing a fraudulent document. The trial court awarded Heather a judgment against Roberts for the sum of $12,049.11. This appeal followed.

FRAUDULENT LIEN

In two issues, Roberts contends that the evidence is not factually sufficient to support the trial court's judgment, and that the trial court did not take all the evidence into account in rendering its judgment. Because both of Roberts's issues challenge the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we will consider them together. Standard of Review

In this case, no findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested or filed in the trial court. See Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990). It is therefore implied that the trial court made all the findings necessary to support its judgment. Id. Implied findings of fact, like the trial court's findings, may be challenged for legal and factual sufficiency. Curtis v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline, 20 S.W.3d 227, 231 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist] 2000, no pet.). In determining whether some evidence supports the judgment and the implied findings of fact, "it is proper to consider only that evidence most favorable to the issue and to disregard entirely that which is opposed to it or contradictory in its nature." Worford, 801 S.W.2d at 109 (quoting Renfro Drug Co. v. Lewis, 149 Tex. 507, 513, 235 S.W.2d 609, 613 (1950)). The trial court's judgment must be affirmed if it can be upheld on any legal basis that has support in the record. Id.; Curtis, 20 S.W.3d at 231. Applicable Law

A mechanic's lien is defined as a lien created by law on real estate, and the improvements thereon, to secure persons who, within the intent of the law, have labored or furnished material, machinery, fixtures, or tools to erect or repair the improvements. Efficient Energy Systems, Inc. v. J. Hoyt Kniveton, Inc., 631 S.W.2d 538, 540 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1982, no pet.). Lien rights are totally dependent on compliance with the statutes authorizing the lien. Lyda Swinerton Bldrs., Inc. v. Cathay Bank, 409 S.W.3d 221, 234 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied). A person claiming a mechanic's lien arising from a residential construction project must file an affidavit with the county clerk of the county in which the property is located not later than the fifteenth day of the third calendar month after the day on which the indebtedness accrues. TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 53.052(b) (West 2014). The affidavit must be signed by the person claiming the lien or by another person on the claimant's behalf and must contain substantially a general statement of the kind of work done and materials furnished by the claimant. Id. § 53.054(a)(3) (West 2014). For a claimant other than an original contractor, the affidavit must also contain a statement of each month in which the work was done and materials furnished for which payment is requested. Id.

A mechanic's lien or affidavit claiming a mechanic's lien may be discharged of record by recording a release of lien signed by the claimant. Id. § 53.157(1) (West 2014). A release of lien, valid on its face, is, until set aside, a complete bar to any action by the former lienholder based on matters covered and discharged by the release. MBank El Paso Nat'l Ass'n v. Featherlite Corp., 792 S.W.2d 472, 476 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1990, writ denied). Once waived or released, a statutory lien cannot be revived. Apex Fin. Corp. v. Brown, 7 S.W.3d 820, 830 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, no pet.).

A person may not make, present, or use a document or other record with knowledge that the document or other record is a fraudulent court record or a fraudulent lien or claim against real or personal property or an interest in real or personal property. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 12.002(a)(1) (West Supp. 2015). A person who violates this statute is liable to each injured person for the greater of $10,000.00 or the actual damages caused by the violation, court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the court. Id. § 12.002 (b) (West Supp. 2015). Discussion

At the hearing, Roberts did not contest the 2009 release of lien filed in Rains County, which released the 2007 mechanic's lien on the real property. When the release of lien was filed in 2009, Roberts's 2007 mechanic's lien was discharged and was a complete bar to any attempt to refile the lien. See MBank El Paso Nat'l Ass'n, 792 S.W.2d at 476. Roberts presented no argument or evidence at the hearing showing that the 2009 release of lien was invalid. Consequently, his filing an affidavit for mechanic's lien in 2013 had no legal effect. See Apex Fin. Corp., 7 S.W.3d at 830. Because there was no statute authorizing Roberts to file the 2013 mechanic's lien affidavit, it was a fraudulent filing. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 12.002(a)(1); Lyda Swinerton Bldrs., Inc., 409 S.W.3d at 234. When Roberts refused to release the 2013 mechanic's lien upon receipt of Heather's attorney's January 30, 2015 letter, he became liable for damages, court costs, attorney's fees, and exemplary damages. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 12.002(b).

Roberts impliedly argues that the trial court relied upon the following statute in rendering its judgment against him, which in pertinent part states:

(c) For purposes of this section, a document or instrument is presumed to be fraudulent if:
. . . .

(2) the document or instrument purports to create a lien or assert a claim against real or personal property or an interest in real or personal property and:
. . . .

(B) is not created by implied or express consent or agreement of the obligor, debtor, or the owner of the real or personal property or an interest in the real or personal property, if required under the laws of this state, or by implied or express consent or agreement of an agent, fiduciary, or other representative of that person[.]

However, whether Edsel owned an interest in the real property at the time Roberts filed the 2013 mechanic's lien affidavit is irrelevant. What is relevant is the evidence that Roberts's mechanic's lien on the real property had been released in 2009. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 53.157(1). His 2013 mechanic's lien affidavit could not resurrect the released lien. See Apex Fin. Corp., 7 S.W.3d at 830. The 2009 release of lien was the only evidence the trial court needed as a basis for its judgment. See MBank El Paso Nat'l Ass'n, 792 S.W.2d at 476; Curtis, 20 S.W.3d at 231.

We hold that the evidence is factually sufficient to support the trial court's judgment against Roberts awarding Heather D. Dixon the sum of $12,049.11 pursuant to Section 12.002 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Roberts's two issues are overruled.

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Roberts's two issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice Opinion delivered March 9, 2016.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)

JUDGMENT

Appeal from the 354th District Court of Rains County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 9877)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that all costs of this appeal are hereby adjudged against the Appellant, ROBERT L. ROBERTS, for which execution may issue, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.