Suit to Quiet Title - Elements of Proof

SUIT TO QUIET TITLE REQUIREMENTS

To prevail in a suit to quiet title, a plaintiff must prove: (1) he has an interest in a specific property; (2) title to the property is affected by a claim by the defendant; and (3) the claim, although facially valid, is invalid or unenforceable. See, e.g., Vernon v. Perrien, 390 S.W.3d 47, 61 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2012, pet. denied); see also U.S. Nat'l Bank Ass'n v. Johnson, No. 01-10-00837-CV, 2011 WL 6938507, at *3 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 30, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.).

"[T]o contest a bank's foreclosure of a deed of trust, a party must, at the time of the foreclosure, either (1) be the mortgagor under the deed of trust or be in privity with the mortgagor, or (2) have an ownership interest in the property affected by the foreclosure." Ursic v. NBC Bank S. Tex., N.A., 827 S.W.2d 334, 336 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied) (citing Goswami v. Metropolitan Sav., 751 S.W.2d 487, 489 (Tex. 1988)). And the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title, not on the weakness of his adversary's title. Fricks v. Hancock, 45 S.W.3d 322, 327 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) (citing Alkas v. United Sav. Ass'n of Tex., Inc., 672 S.W.2d 852, 857 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.)).

He "must allege right, title or ownership in himself with sufficient certainty to enable the court to see that plaintiff has a right of ownership that will warrant judicial interference." Ellison v. Butler, 443 S.W.2d 886, 888-89 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1969, no writ); see Wright v. Matthews, 26 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2000, pet. denied). The plaintiff has the burden of supplying the proof necessary to establish his superior equity and right to relief. Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Carter, 371 S.W.3d 366, 387-88 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.], pet. denied) (op. on reh'g); Ellison, 443 S.W.2d at 888-89.

SOURCE: CORPUS CHRISTI COURT OF APPEALS - Nos. 13-12-00474-CV, 13-12-00753-CV - 2/13/2014


SUIT TO QUIET TITLE AND TRESPASS TO TRY TITLE - 2015 USDC CASE 

"To prevail in a trespass-to-try-title action, Plaintiffs must usually (1) prove a regular chain of conveyances from the sovereign, (2) establish superior title out of a common source, (3) prove title by limitations, or (4) prove title by prior possession coupled with proof that possession was not abandoned." Martin v. Amerman, 133 S.W.3d 262, 265 (Tex. 2004) (citation omitted). "The pleading rules are detailed and formal, and require a plaintiff to prevail on the superiority of his title, not on the weakness of a defendant's title." Id. (citation omitted).

A suit to quiet title is an equitable remedy to clarify ownership by removing clouds on the title. See Ford v. Exxon Mobil Chem. Co., 235 S.W.3d 615, 618 (Tex. 2007). To establish a claim for suit to quiet title, a plaintiff must show the following: (1) an interest in specific property; (2) that title to the property is affected by a claim by the defendant; and (3) that the claim, although facially valid, is invalid or unenforceable. Sadler v. Duvall, 815 S.W.2d 285, 293, n.2 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1991, pet. denied). An adverse claim, to constitute a cloud on the title removable by the court, must be one that is valid on its face but is proved by extrinsic evidence to be invalid or unenforceable. Id.

Plaintiffs also bring a suit to quiet title and/or action for trespass to try title on the premise that they are the rightful owners of the Property because the foreclosure was improper.

Plaintiffs have failed to produce summary judgment evidence of their superiority of title. It is undisputed that the Property was purchased at a foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs have offered no summary judgment evidence that there was a defect in the foreclosure proceedings. When Plaintiffs defaulted on the Note, causing Defendants to foreclose on the Property, Plaintiffs lost any interest they could claim in the Property, and Plaintiffs have no evidence to establish they have an interest in the Property. Defendants' interest in the Property was valid and enforceable. The Court has already rejected Plaintiffs' other claims. Since Plaintiffs have abandoned their allegation that Defendants lacked authority to foreclose, the only bases for these claims are alleged violations of TILA and the TDCA. Plaintiffs have conceded their TDCA claims, and the Court has found that their TILA claim fails as a matter of law. Although Plaintiffs contend they have superior title to the Property because the foreclosure is void, they fail to identify any defect in the foreclosure proceeding which would render the sale void. Thus, Plaintiffs have no basis for an action based upon trespass to try title or quiet title.

SOURCE: Brewer v. Bank of America, NA, Dist. Court, ED Texas January 7, 2015.  

What must the plaintiff show in a suit to quiet title?

SUIT TO QUIET TITLE REQUIREMENTS

To prevail in a suit to quiet title, a plaintiff must prove: (1) he has an interest in a specific property; (2) title to the property is affected by a claim by the defendant; and (3) the claim, although facially valid, is invalid or unenforceable. See, e.g., Vernon v. Perrien, 390 S.W.3d 47, 61 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2012, pet. denied); see also U.S. Nat'l Bank Ass'n v. Johnson, No. 01-10-00837-CV, 2011 WL 6938507, at *3 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 30, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.). "[T]o contest a bank's foreclosure of a deed of trust, a party must, at the time of the foreclosure, either (1) be the mortgagor under the deed of trust or be in privity with the mortgagor, or (2) have an ownership interest in the property affected by the foreclosure." Ursic v. NBC Bank S. Tex., N.A., 827 S.W.2d 334, 336 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied) (citing Goswami v. Metropolitan Sav., 751 S.W.2d 487, 489 (Tex. 1988)).

Caselaw snippet from a 2015 federal district court opinion/order 

STRENGTH OF PLAINTIFF'S TITLE VS WEAKNESS OF OPPONENT'S

And the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title, not on the weakness of his adversary's title. Fricks v. Hancock, 45 S.W.3d 322, 327 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) (citing Alkas v. United Sav. Ass'n of Tex., Inc., 672 S.W.2d 852, 857 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.)). He "must allege right, title or ownership in himself with sufficient certainty to enable the court to see that plaintiff has a right of ownership that will warrant judicial interference." Ellison v. Butler, 443 S.W.2d 886, 888-89 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1969, no writ); see Wright v. Matthews, 26 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2000, pet. denied). The plaintiff has the burden of supplying the proof necessary to establish his superior equity and right to relief. Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Carter, 371 S.W.3d 366, 387-88 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.], pet. denied) (op. on reh'g); Ellison, 443 S.W.2d at 888-89.

SOURCE: CORPUS CHRISTI COURT OF APPEALS - Nos. 13-12-00474-CV, 13-12-00753-CV Burnett v Bank of New

Eviction vs. title dispute - Difference implicates jurisdictional aspects

Eviction (forcible detainer) vs. title dispute – Distinction has jurisdictional ramifications 

 

The sole issue to be determined in a forcible detainer action is the entitlement to actual and immediate possession, and the merits of the title shall not be adjudicated. Hong Kong Dev., Inc. v. Nguyen, 229 S.W.3d 415, 434 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); Dass, Inc. v. Smith, 206 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, no pet.).

A justice court in the precinct in which real property is located has jurisdiction over a forcible detainer suit but is expressly deprived of jurisdiction to determine or adjudicate title to land. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.004 (West 2000); TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 27.031(a)(2),(b)(4) (West Supp. 2011). A forcible detainer suit may be appealed to the county court, in which trial is de novo. TEX. R. CIV. P. 749; Hong Kong, 229 S.W.3d at 433-34. A county court's appellate jurisdiction is confined to the limits of the justice court. Hong Kong, 229 S.W.3d at 433-34. Thus, a county court that conducts a de novo review of a forcible detainer action is restricted to the jurisdictional limits that existed in the justice court, regardless of other statutory grants of jurisdiction to the county court. Black v. Washington Mut. Bank, 318 S.W.3d 414, 417 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. dism'd w.o.j.).

The justice court, and a county court on appeal, lack jurisdiction to resolve any questions of title beyond the immediate right to possession but a justice court is not deprived of jurisdiction merely by the existence of a title dispute. See Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705, 713 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2001, no pet.). Rather, it is only deprived of jurisdiction if the right to immediate possession necessarily requires the resolution of a title dispute. Id. Courts have specifically addressed whether a justice court has jurisdiction over a forcible detainer suit where the case also involves a dispute over a trustee's deed conveying property purchased at a foreclosure sale. Courts have explained:

[A] judgment of possession in a forcible detainer action is a determination only of the right to immediate possession of the premises, and does not determine the ultimate rights of the parties to any other issue in controversy relating to the realty in question. . . . [Parties] have the right to sue in the district court to determine whether the trustee's deed should be cancelled, independent of [the] award of possession of the premises in the forcible detainer action [.]

Id. at 710 (quoting Martinez v. Beasley, 572 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1978, no writ)) (emphasis in original). "To prevail in a forcible detainer action, a plaintiff is not required to prove title, but is only required to show sufficient evidence of ownership to demonstrate a superior right to immediate possession." Id. at 709. In Rice, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that where a deed of trust established a landlord and tenant at sufferance relationship between the purchaser at the foreclosure sale and the previous owners or those holding under them, there was an "independent basis on which the trial court could determine the issue of immediate possession without resolving the issue of title to the property." Id. at 712.

SOURCE: HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS - 01-11-00546-CV – 5/26/2012 

Suit to remove cloud from title, suit to quiet title

  
CIVIL ACTION TO RESOLVE TITLE DISPUTE 

A suit to quiet title, sometimes referred to as a suit to remove a cloud from title, is an equitable action that may be used to establish that an adverse party's claim to property is invalid or unenforceable. See Angell v. Bailey, 225 S.W.3d 834, 838 n.6 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2007, no pet.) ("A cloud on title exists when an outstanding claim or encumbrance is shown, which on its face, if valid, would affect or impair the title of the owner of the property."); see also In re Stroud Oil Props., Inc., 110 S.W.3d 18, 25-26 (Tex. App.-Waco 2002, orig. proceeding); Wright v. Matthews, 26 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2000, pet. denied); Bell v. Ott, 606 S.W.2d 942, 952-53 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.). "

 A suit to quiet title or to remove a cloud can be maintained only by a person owning an interest in the property involved." Bell, 606 S.W.2d at 953. The plaintiff in a suit to quiet title then "must allege right, title, or ownership in himself or herself with sufficient certainty to enable the court to see he or she has a right of ownership that will warrant judicial interference." Wright, 26 S.W.3d at 578.

 SOURCE: 03-08-00372-CV (Austin Court of Appeals) (2/26/10)