With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". days after the seizure. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 59.04(a); State v. Lot 10, Pine Haven Estates, 900 S.W.2d 400, 401 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1995, no writ). Appellant contends that the seizure, forfeiture, and filing of the lis pendens were simultaneously done in violation of article 59.04, which, according to appellant, mandates that the property must first be seized before the lis pendens is filed and forfeiture proceedings begin. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 59.04(a), (g). We disagree with appellant’s interpretation of article 59.04. There is nothing in the statute, and appellant has provided no relevant law or discussion, indicating that the simultaneous filing of these documents is improper. See Bochas v. State, 951 S.W.2d 64, 70 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1997, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Appellant also challenges the findings of

A: holding that forfeiture of real property may be adjudicated before the seizure occurs because real property cannot abscond
B: holding that a tax appeal on real property is a lien on the real estate and not a personal obligation of the landowner
C: holding that the legal title holders to real property held it in constructive trust for the equitable title holder who was entitled to the real property based on an earlier contract
D: holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property
A.