Why Closing Cost results differ in Texas

The top 5 reasons results differ

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Closing Cost calculator.

If your DocketMath closing-cost calculator output looks inconsistent across Texas scenarios, it’s usually not a bug—it’s jurisdiction-aware logic interacting with different facts you may be changing (even slightly). For Texas, DocketMath aligns its timing assumptions with the Texas statutory limitations framework found in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 12.

A key detail: No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found, so the calculator uses the general/default period from Chapter 12 (rather than a different period per claim type). The general SOL period used in this model is 0.0833333333 years (≈ 1 month), based on the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 12 framework.

Here are the top five reasons results differ for Texas:

1. **Different start dates (event date vs. filing date)

   • Closing-cost outputs often depend on how long the underlying timeline runs.
   • If one run uses a start date tied to the “event” and another uses a start date tied to “filing,” the counted time window changes—so the totals can differ.

2. **Different end dates (dismissal/decision date vs. calculation cutoffs)

   • Even when the same Texas default period is applied, changing the “end” or “as of” date can change whether time is treated as inside or outside the default timing framework.

3. Rounding effects from the fractional-year assumption

   • The model’s period is 0.0833333333 years, not a whole number of days.
   • Depending on how your workflow converts or rounds dates (or how dates are prepared before they’re fed into the calculator), you can see small boundary shifts that affect the final output.

4. **Jurisdiction labeling differences (US-TX not applied)

   • If the workflow accidentally passes the wrong jurisdiction code—or omits it—DocketMath may not apply the Texas Chapter 12 default period logic.
   • Result: totals reflect a different default assumption than Chapter 12.

5. **Input drift across runs (fees, costs, counts)

   • Small edits to cost inputs—like changing the number of units, adjusting a cost category, or revising a fee basis—will change outputs even when all timeline inputs look identical.
   • This commonly happens when spreadsheets/forms are copied and lightly edited.

Source (jurisdiction timing framework): https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.12.htm

How to isolate the variable

To pinpoint what’s driving the difference, run a controlled A/B test in DocketMath where everything stays constant except one variable at a time.

• Freeze the jurisdiction and tool settings so both runs use the same rule set.
• Compare one input at a time (dates, rates, amounts) and re-run after each change.
• Review the breakdown to see which segment or assumption drives the difference.

1) Keep everything constant except one field

Use this checklist:

2) Test “one-month boundary” sensitivity

Because the general/default period is 0.0833333333 years (≈ 1 month), the most common timing mismatches show up when dates move across that approximate boundary.

Try two runs:

• Run A: end date set to the day before the one-month boundary
• Run B: end date set to the day on/after the boundary

If outputs diverge noticeably, the discrepancy is likely tied to date boundary handling or rounding/date math in how inputs are prepared.

3) Confirm Texas Chapter 12 assumptions are actually being applied

If you still can’t reproduce the difference, check whether your process is truly triggering the Texas logic:

• Confirm US-TX is being sent consistently.
• Look for any upstream mapping that might overwrite jurisdiction or route to a non-Texas model.

If you want to rerun quickly, start with the calculator here: /tools/closing-cost

Next steps

1. Re-run with a “minimal input” baseline

   • Use the smallest set of inputs that still reproduces the inconsistency.
   • Then add inputs back one at a time to identify the exact field causing the change.

2. Record the exact dates used

   • Capture the exact start/end/as-of dates from each run.
   • Also note any date conversion steps (for example, whether your workflow interprets dates as calendar days).

3. **Don’t assume claim type changes the SOL period (based on provided data)

   • Since no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found, don’t expect different claim types to automatically trigger a different SOL period unless your inputs/rules explicitly model it elsewhere in your process.
   • In this calculator’s Texas default approach, the general/default period is the baseline.

4. Use DocketMath to drive consistency checks

   • Keep cost inputs stable, vary only the timeline inputs, and see which changes flip the output. This is often faster than trying to guess which rule fired.

Related reading

• Average closing costs in Alabama — Rule summary with authoritative citations
• Average closing costs in Alaska — Rule summary with authoritative citations
• Average closing costs in Arizona — Rule summary with authoritative citations