Thus, before the redemption deadline, the landowner had tendered about 88% of the amount owed and had offered to pay the rest.In an opinion by Chief Justice Hecht, the Supreme Court first held that substantial compliance with the redemption statute is sufficient to redeem the property. In so holding, the Court distinguished the statute at issue here from the statute at issue in BankDirect Capital Finance, LLC v. Plasma Fab, LLC, 519 S.W.3d 76 (Tex. 2017). The Court reasoned that in BankDirect, the statute was clear, short, and focused on a single deadline, while the redemption statute is "exceedingly complex" and not focused solely on the redemption deadline.

Thus, before the redemption deadline, the landowner had tendered about 88% of the amount owed and had offered to pay the rest.In an opinion by Chief Justice Hecht, the Supreme Court first held that substantial compliance with the redemption statute is sufficient to redeem the property. In so holding, the Court distinguished the statute at issue here from the statute at issue in BankDirect Capital Finance, LLC v. Plasma Fab, LLC, 519 S.W.3d 76 (Tex. 2017). The Court reasoned that in BankDirect, the statute was clear, short, and focused on a single deadline, while the redemption statute is "exceedingly complex" and not focused solely on the redemption deadline.