void title cannot claim in Texas

2021Tuesday Real Estate acquired and has no legal right, title, or interest in the Premises 6 The Texas Supreme Court includes the following parenthetical: See, e.g., Bellaire Kirkpatrick Joint Venture v. Loots, 826 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) (“A void instrument passes no title, and the mere fact that the grantee–mortgagee is an innocent purchaser makes no difference.”); Wall v. Lubbock, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 405 , 118 S.W. 886 , 888 (1909, writ ref’d) (“One holding under a void title cannot claim protection as an innocent purchaser.”); Henderson v. Lindley, 75 Tex. –19–

2016See, e.g., Bellaire Kirkpatrick Joint Venture v. Loots, 826 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) (“A void instrument passes no title, and the mere fact that the grantee-mortgagee is an innocent purchaser makes no difference.”); Wall v. Lubbock, 52 Tex.Civ.App. 405 , 118 S.W. 886 , 888 (1909, writ ref'd) (“One holding under a void title cannot claim protection as an innocent purchaser.”); Henderson v. Lindley, 75 Tex. 185 , 12 S.W. 979, 980 (1889) (noting that a purchaser “could not be an innocent purchaser under a void sale”).

2015App.—Fort Worth 1951, writ ref’d 26 n.r.e.); cf. Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 397 S.W.3d at 168 (stating that one holding under a void title cannot claim protection as an innocent purchaser).

2015App.-Fort Worth 1951, writ refd n.r.e.); cf. Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 397 S.W.3d at 168 (stating that one holding under a void title cannot claim protection as an innocent purchaser).

2015We conclude and hold that because the Karnes County district court cancelled the 1929 deed and declared it as “naught” in 1944, the deed operated as void from at least that time forward, and JPMorgan’s predecessor could not therefore qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value when acquiring its interest years later. 22 See Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 397 S.W.3d at 168 ; Sanchez, 960 S.W.2d at 768 ; see also Swindall, 58 S.W.2d at 10 (explaining that ignorance of defects in a deed is a defense to an innocent purchaser “until such an instrument has been declared to be void”).

2015We conclude and hold that because the Karnes County district court cancelled the 1929 deed and declared it as “naught” in 1944, the deed operated as void from at least that time forward, and JPMorgan’s predecessor could not therefore qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value when acquiring its interest years later. 22 See Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 397 S.W.3d at 168 ; Sanchez, 960 S.W.2d at 768 ; see also Swindall, 58 S.W.2d at 10 (explaining that ignorance of defects in a deed is a defense to an innocent purchaser “until such an instrument has been declared to be void”).

2021Tuesday Real Estate acquired and has no legal right, title, or interest in the Premises 6 The Texas Supreme Court includes the following parenthetical: See, e.g., Bellaire Kirkpatrick Joint Venture v. Loots, 826 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) (“A void instrument passes no title, and the mere fact that the grantee–mortgagee is an innocent purchaser makes no difference.”); Wall v. Lubbock, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 405 , 118 S.W. 886 , 888 (1909, writ ref’d) (“One holding under a void title cannot claim protection as an innocent purchaser.”); Henderson v. Lindley, 75 Tex. –19–

2016See, e.g., Bellaire Kirkpatrick Joint Venture v. Loots, 826 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) (“A void instrument passes no title, and the mere fact that the grantee-mortgagee is an innocent purchaser makes no difference.”); Wall v. Lubbock, 52 Tex.Civ.App. 405 , 118 S.W. 886 , 888 (1909, writ ref'd) (“One holding under a void title cannot claim protection as an innocent purchaser.”); Henderson v. Lindley, 75 Tex. 185 , 12 S.W. 979, 980 (1889) (noting that a purchaser “could not be an innocent purchaser under a void sale”).

2021Laster v. First Huntsville Properties Co., 826 S.W.2d 125, 130 (Tex. 1991) (“A mortgage or lien that is void because it was illegally levied against homestead property can never have any effect, even after the property is no longer impressed with the homestead character.”); see, e.g., Diversified, Inc. v. Walker, 702 S.W.2d 717, 723 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.).7 We conclude the trial court did not err in finding that Tuesday was not a bona fide purchaser.

2021Laster v. First Huntsville Properties Co., 826 S.W.2d 125, 130 (Tex. 1991) (“A mortgage or lien that is void because it was illegally levied against homestead property can never have any effect, even after the property is no longer impressed with the homestead character.”); see, e.g., Diversified, Inc. v. Walker, 702 S.W.2d 717, 723 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.).7 We conclude the trial court did not err in finding that Tuesday was not a bona fide purchaser.

2016See, e.g., Bellaire Kirkpatrick Joint Venture v. Loots, 826 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) (“A void instrument passes no title, and the mere fact that the grantee-mortgagee is an innocent purchaser makes no difference.”); Wall v. Lubbock, 52 Tex.Civ.App. 405 , 118 S.W. 886 , 888 (1909, writ ref'd) (“One holding under a void title cannot claim protection as an innocent purchaser.”); Henderson v. Lindley, 75 Tex. 185 , 12 S.W. 979, 980 (1889) (noting that a purchaser “could not be an innocent purchaser under a void sale”).

2016See, e.g., Bellaire Kirkpatrick Joint Venture v. Loots, 826 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) (“A void instrument passes no title, and the mere fact that the grantee-mortgagee is an innocent purchaser makes no difference.”); Wall v. Lubbock, 52 Tex.Civ.App. 405 , 118 S.W. 886 , 888 (1909, writ ref'd) (“One holding under a void title cannot claim protection as an innocent purchaser.”); Henderson v. Lindley, 75 Tex. 185 , 12 S.W. 979, 980 (1889) (noting that a purchaser “could not be an innocent purchaser under a void sale”).

2015However, we refused the writ of error in 25 Wall, 118 S.W. at 888. a case holding that this doctrine does not protect a purchaser whose chain of title includes a void deed: “One holding 26 Cooksey v. Sinder, 682 S.W.2d 252, 253 (Tex.1984) (per under a void title cannot claim protection as an innocent curiam). purchaser.” 22 © 2015 Thomson Reuters.