Thompson v. Six Shooter Enters., LLC

633 S.W.3d 107

Rossana THOMPSON, Appellant,

v.SIX SHOOTER ENTERPRISES, LLC, Appellee.

No. 08-19-00300-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso.

August 19, 2021

APPELLANT: Rossana Thompson, 613 S. Adams Rd., Crane, TX 79731.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: Austin Ryan Rawls, Rawls Legal, PLLC, 520 S. Gaston St., Ste. B, Crane, TX 79731.

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.

OPINION

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

This is an appeal from a final order granting summary judgment in favor of Six Shooter Enterprises, LLC (Six Shooter) in a quiet title action disputing ownership of forty-two (42) parcels of real property in Crane County, Texas (collectively referred to as the "subject property"). In two issues, Appellant Rossana Thompson¹ asserts the trial court erred in concluding as a matter of law that two separate deeds conveying the subject property to her were void on the basis of her delay in recording the instruments; and further erred in concluding that Six Shooter qualified as a bona fide purchaser, as she argues it had constructive notice of her interest in the subject property.

We modify the trial court's judgment and affirm as modified.

BACKGROUND

The subject property in dispute consists of 42 small parcels of land, each ranging in size from .029 acres to .057 acres. From our record, we note that each of the 42 properties is sometimes referred to by a lot number within its respective block, and sometimes by an individual parcel number. For simplicity, we will refer to the properties by their parcel number only, according to the chart below:

Block	Lot #’s	Parcel #’s
15 & 16	763 & 764
29 through 41	777 through 789
5	43 through 45	791 through 793
57 through 69	805 through 817
71 through 73	819 through 821
6	9 through 16	7095 through 7102

There are a total of five deeds covering all or part of the subject property that are relevant to this case. Each deed has an execution date and a date that it was recorded in the Crane County public records. We note—importantly—that the deeds were not necessarily recorded in the same order they were executed, nor were they necessarily recorded before subsequent deeds were executed. For the purposes of this opinion, we refer to each deed by a number according to the chronological order in which it was executed, but we also note the date when each deed was recorded. The earliest date relevant to this dispute is March 18, 2013. Prior to that date, Rossana owned eight² parcels and Guillermo and Amparo Villa (the Villas) owned the other thirty-four (34).³

Jimmy Acquires All 42 Parcels

On March 18, 2013, Rossana executed a Warranty Deed (Deed 1) conveying her eight parcels to her son, Jimmy. On May 6, 2013, the Villas executed a Warranty Deed (Deed 2) conveying their 34 parcels, also to Jimmy. By May 6, 2013, Jimmy owned all 42 parcels, although he did not immediately record Deeds 1 or 2.

Jimmy Conveys Eight Parcels to Rossana and Records Deeds 1 & 2

Three days later, on May 9, 2013, Jimmy executed a Warranty Deed (Deed 3) in favor of Rossana for the same eight parcels she had conveyed to him almost two months earlier. Rossana did not immediately record Deed 3. Jimmy then recorded Deed 2 on May 13, 2013, and Deed 1 on May 23, 2013. As a result, by the end of May 2013, Rossana purportedly owned eight parcels and Jimmy purportedly owned 34. However, because Rossana had not yet recorded Deed 3, it would have appeared from a search of the Crane County public records that, under Deeds 1 and 2, Jimmy still purportedly owned all 42 parcels at that time.

Jimmy Conveys His Interest in All 42 Parcels to Rossana by Quitclaim Deed

Over two years later, on June 22, 2015, Jimmy executed a Quitclaim Deed (Deed 4) in favor of Rossana, conveying to her whatever interest he had in all 42 parcels. Rossana did not immediately record this deed. Therefore, by the end of June of 2015, Rossana purportedly owned all 42 parcels and Jimmy owned nothing. However, because Rossana had not yet recorded Deeds 3 or 4, it would have appeared from a search of the Crane County public records that Jimmy still owned all 42 parcels due to his recording of Deeds 1 and 2.

Jimmy Illegally Conveys All 42 Parcels to Six Shooter

Almost three years later, on May 31, 2018, Jimmy entered into a contract to sell all 42 parcels to Six Shooter in exchange for the sum of $400 per lot. The sales contract further required Six Shooter to complete title searches for each lot. Upon clear title authenticated, the contract further required Six Shooter to provide a warranty deed to Jimmy, on or before June 21, 2018. Once presented with the warranty deed covering the subject property, and full payment tendered, the contract thereafter required that Jimmy sign the deed and transfer the property. Because Rossana had not yet recorded either of her deeds, Six Shooter's title search revealed that Jimmy appeared to own clean title to all 42 parcels. As a result, Six Shooter provided Jimmy with a Warranty Deed (Deed 5) for the 42 lots, which Jimmy signed on June 18, 2018. Six Shooter then recorded Deed 5 that same day. Here, the parties agree the sale by Jimmy was illegal; they disagree, however, on whether Six Shooter otherwise had notice of Rossana's claim of ownership at the time of Jimmy's conveyance.

Rossana Records Deeds 3 & 4

On August 14, 2018, Rossana recorded Deed 4. Six days later, on August 20, 2018, Rossana recorded Deed 3. Of course, by the time Rossana recorded her two deeds, Six Shooter had already completed the sales contract and recorded its deed (Deed 5) as signed by Jimmy.

Summarizing these transactions, the chart below provides relevant details about each of the five deeds involved:

No.	Type	# of Parcels	Executed	From	In favor of	Recorded
1	Warranty	8	March 18, 2013	Rossana	Jimmy	May 23, 2013
2	Warranty	34	May 6, 2013	Villas	Jimmy	May 13, 2013
3	Warranty	8	May 9, 2013	Jimmy	Rossana	August 20, 2018
4	Quitclaim	All 42	June 22, 2015	Jimmy	Rossana	August 14, 2018
5	Warranty	All 42	June 18, 2018	Jimmy	Six Shooter	June 18, 2018

Procedural History

On October 17, 2018, Six Shooter filed the underlying action to quiet title in the 42 parcels, claiming that it had superior title to the subject property as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of competing claims (hereinafter referred to simply as a "bona fide purchaser") because it purchased the parcels from Jimmy in good faith, for value, and with no actual or constructive knowledge that Jimmy had previously conveyed the parcels to Rossana. Six Shooter later filed a motion for summary judgment and an accompanying brief in support on the issue of whether it was an innocent purchaser of the subject property. As summary judgment evidence, Six Shooter attached each of the five deeds described above, along with the contract for sale between it and Jimmy. Six Shooter's motion was heard on October 24, 2019. In its brief in support of its motion and during the hearing on the motion, Six Shooter argued that the date and timestamps on the five deeds, along with the language of Six Shooter's deed, conclusively establish that it took the subject property in good faith, for valuable consideration, without notice of a prior conveyance.

Responding, Rossana argued she was in the possession of the subject property at the time Six Shooter claims it recorded its warranty deed in its favor. As evidence of notice of her interest, Rossana presented a number of undated photographs that purport to show work that she and others performed on the properties including cleaning of the empty lots, working on a sewer line and a water line, and installing PVC for water on the properties. Rossana also presented a series of receipts, payment confirmations, and other documents that she alleges were related to the subject property.

In granting a summary judgment in favor of Six Shooter, the trial court found that no question of material fact existed in the case even in the light most favorable to Rossana, the nonmovant. The trial court found the Warranty Deed (Deed 5) in favor of Six Shooter was recorded in the Crane County property records on June 18, 2018, without notice of any prior conveyances. Specifically, the trial court found that Six Shooter lacked notice of the following conveyances from Jimmy to Rossana: (1) the Warranty Deed (Deed 3) executed on May 9, 2013, recorded August 20,2018, and (2) the Quitclaim Deed (Deed 4) executed June 22, 2015, recorded August 14, 2018. The trial court ordered, adjudged, and decreed the Warranty Deed (Deed 5) in favor of Six Shooter was valid and enforceable; and that Six Shooter was a bona fide purchaser. Lastly, the trial court ordered, adjudged, and decreed that both of Rossana's deeds (Deeds 3 and 4) were void as instruments of conveyance.

This appeal followed.

ISSUES PRESENTED

Rossana raises two issues on appeal: first, whether the trial court erred in finding that Deeds 3 and 4 were void as conveyance instruments; and second, whether the trial court erred in finding that Six Shooter conclusively established its status as a bona fide purchaser.

We address both issues in turn while recognizing that a part of the first issue overlaps with the second issue in its entirety.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court reviews de novo a trial court's order granting summary judgment. Hillis v. McCall , 602 S.W.3d 436, 439 (Tex. 2020). Under the traditional standard for summary judgment, the movant has the initial burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the trial court should grant a judgment as a matter of law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c) ; see Hillis , 602 S.W.3d at 439-40 (citing ConocoPhillips Co. v. Koopmann , 547 S.W.3d 858, 865 (Tex. 2018) ). Importantly, it is not part of the movant's initial burden to negate all possible issues of fact or law that could be raised by the nonmovant. See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth. , 589 S.W.2d 671, 678-79 (Tex. 1979). Instead, when the movant presents summary judgment proof of each element of the claim or defense upon which it seeks summary judgment, the burden then shifts to...