In Woodside Assur., Inc. v. N.K. Res., Inc., 175 S.W.3d 421 (Tex. App.--Houston 1st Dist. 2005, no pet.), N.K. Resources ("NKR") purchased property from Lloyd Gibbs after a final judgment had been issued ordering that the property be sold at auction. Id. at 423. The sale occurred three days before the foreclosure auction. Id. After the sale, NKR applied for the excess proceeds, and the trial court released the proceeds to NKR. Id. On appeal, the appellant, Woodside Assurance Inc. ("Woodside"), argued that it had acquired an interest in the property and was entitled to the proceeds. Id. More importantly to the present case, Woodside also insisted that NKR should not have been awarded the proceeds because it "manipulated the tax foreclosure process by purchasing the property three days before the auction" and because its "actions allowed it to bypass the requirements" pertaining to the assignment of excess proceeds. Id. at 426-27. When resolving these issues, the appellate court noted that nothing in the former tax code provision "prevents a third party from buying the subject property prior to the foreclosure sale." Id. Moreover, although the court concluded that "NKR's purchase of the property before foreclosure allowed it to avoid" the restrictions applicable to the assignments of proceeds "after foreclosure," the court noted that it could find no "authority that precluded NKR from purchasing the property, or the owner from selling the property, prior to the imminent foreclosure." Id. at 427. The Court concluded that a promissory note holder that did not bring suit pursuant to a deed of trust securing the note within four years of the note's maturity "lost all remedies for the enforcement of its lien and had no entitlement to the excess proceeds." Id. The note that formed the basis of the claim in Woodside Assurance matured more than four years before the tax suit was filed. Id. The court, relying on section 16.036(d) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, explained: "When there is no recorded renewal or extension, the maturity date stated in the original instrument is conclusive evidence of the maturity date of the debt. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 16.036(d). Four years from the date, it is conclusively presumed that the lien debt is paid. . . . The effect of such a conclusive presumption of payment, like the effect of actual payment, is to terminate the superior title retained by the vendor and, consequently, to terminate all remedies for the enforcement of such superior title. . . . A bona fide third person is entitled to the statutory presumption that the debt was paid and that the lien became void and ceased to exist." Id. at 425. Because the debt on the note was presumed paid four years from the maturity date of the note, the lien had ceased to exist when the petition for excess proceeds was filed. Id. Because the claimant's lien no longer existed, the claimant was not entitled to excess proceeds as a "lienholder" pursuant to section 34.04(c)(3) of the tax code. See id. Section 16.036(d) provides: The maturity date stated in the original instrument or in the date of the recorded renewal and extension is conclusive evidence of the maturity date of the debt or obligation. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 16.036(d) (West 2002).