Roberts Markel Weinberg Butler Hailey PC Logo
Home > About > Reported Cases > Property and Deeds

Property and Deeds

Corcoran v. Atascocita Cmty. Improvement Ass'n, No. 14-12-00982-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 13442, at *1 (App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (Authority of Association; Attorney’s Fees)
A homeowners' association had authority to overrule an architectural control committee's decision regarding owners' projects because the committee ratified an assignment of its authority to the association in accordance with Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 204.011(b)(3) and, in designating the committee as its agent for architectural control review, the association retained supervisory authority; Awarding attorney's fees had no chilling effect on homeowners' declaratory actions and did not violate Tex. Const. art. I, § 13.

Elbar Invs. v. Williamson & Sears, No. 01-03-00278-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 5150 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 10, 2004, no pet.). (Attorney’s Duty to Disclose)
Under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), attorneys for judgment creditors had no duty to disclose to a purchaser the existence of an individual's claim of ownership to a property because the constable's sale issued a quitclaim deed, which gives the purchaser notice of all defects in title.

Commonwealth Land Title Co. v. Nelson, 889 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied). (Deed of Trust; Forgery)
A deed of trust is not rendered a forgery by merely referencing a forged document. The D'Oench, Duhme doctrine, which allows the FDIC to rely on official bank records in determining the worth of the bank's assets, does not preclude a claim against the FDIC that a document was forged because forgery is fraud in fact, making the forged document void, and the doctrine cannot revive a void document.

Wynne/Jackson Dev., L.P. v. Pac Capital Holdings, LTD, No. 13-12-00449-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 6865, at *13 (App.—Corpus Christi 2013) (Oil & Gas; Royalties)
Developer, oil and gas interest owner, and HOA were in a dispute over what royalties were owed under several oil and gas leases. The Court determined that that the interest in this case is a fractional royalty, not a fraction of royalty.