estoppel by deed doctrine in Texas

2015Appellees cite to XTO Energy Inc. v. Nikolai, 357 S.W.3d 47, 55 (Tex. App.BFort Worth 2011, pet. denied) for an explication of the estoppel by deed doctrine.

2015In Texas, the doctrine of estoppel by deed “precludes parties from alleging title ‘in derogation of the deed or denying the truth of any material fact asserted in it.’” XTO Energy Inc. v. Nikolai, 357 S.W.3d 47, 56 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2011, pet. denied).

2015Estoppel by Deed The doctrine of estoppel by deed is of “universal recognition.” XTO v. Nikolai, 357 S.W.3d 47, 56 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth, pet. denied) citing Woldert v. Skelly Oil Co., 202 S.W.2d 706, 709 (Tex. Civ.

2011The doctrine of estoppel by deed is of ―universal recognition.‖ Woldert v. Skelly Oil Co., 202 S.W.2d 706, 709 (Tex. Civ.

2023See Greene v. White, 153 S.W.2d 575, 583 (Tex. 1941).

2020“In the broadest sense, estoppel by deed stands for the proposition that all parties to a deed are bound by the recitals in it, which operate as an estoppel.” 41 We have further observed that 40 See LaLonde, ___ S.W.3d at ___ (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 41 Trial v. Dragon, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tex. 2019) (citing Greene v. White, 153 S.W.2d 575 , 583–84 (Tex. 1941)). 16 estoppel-by-deed “does not bind mere strangers.” 42 The court of appeals held that Teal could not invoke an estoppel-by-deed defense because Teal was not a party to the replat. 534 S.W.3d at 586 (citing Tex

2019Over the years, the doctrine of estoppel by deed developed in the courts of appeals to have a wide application that “all parties to a deed are bound by the recitals therein, which operate as an estoppel, working on the interest in the land if it be a deed of conveyance, and binding both parties and privies; privies in blood, privies in estate, and privies in law.” E.g., Sauceda v. Kerlin, 164 S.W.3d 892, 915 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2005) (quoting Wallace v. Pruitt, 20 S.W. 728 , 728–79 (Tex. App.—Houston 1892, no writ)), rev’d, 263 S.W.3d 920 (Tex. 2008).

2007Sauceda, 164 S.W.3d at 915 .

2011“The doctrine of an estoppel by deed is ... founded upon the theory that the parties have contracted upon the basis of the recited facts.” Williams, 85 Tex. at 506 , 22 S.W. at 401 .

2002Williams v. Hardie, 85 Tex. 499 , 22 S.W. 399, 401 (1893); see also Adams v. Duncan, 147 Tex. 332 , 215 S.W.2d 599, 603 (1948); Greene v. White, 137 Tex. 361, 153 *800 S.W.2d 575, 583-86 (1941).

2023A recital is a “formal statement or setting forth of some matter of fact, in any 11 deed or writing, in order to explain the reasons upon which the transaction is founded.” McMahan v. Greenwood, 108 S.W.3d 467, 484 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied).

2022See Clark, 161 S.W.2d at 271–72; Texas Standard Oil & Gas.

2020“In the broadest sense, estoppel by deed stands for the proposition that all parties to a deed are bound by the recitals in it, which operate as an estoppel.” 41 We have further observed that 40 See LaLonde, ___ S.W.3d at ___ (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 41 Trial v. Dragon, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tex. 2019) (citing Greene v. White, 153 S.W.2d 575 , 583–84 (Tex. 1941)). 16 estoppel-by-deed “does not bind mere strangers.” 42 The court of appeals held that Teal could not invoke an estoppel-by-deed defense because Teal was not a party to the replat. 534 S.W.3d at 586 (citing Tex

2019See 568 S.W.3d at 167–69.

2019See 568 S.W.3d at 168–69.

2017XTO Energy Inc. v. Nikolai , 357 S.W.3d 47 , 56 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2011, pet. denied) ; see also Greene v. White , 137 Tex. 361 , 153 S.W.2d 575 , 583 (1941) (estoppel by deed applies to grantors and grantees); Angell , 225 S.W.3d at 842 (same).

2015The Fort Worth Court of Appeals stated that: …all parties to a deed are bound by the recitals therein, which operate as an estoppel, working on the interest in the land if it be a deed of conveyance, and binding both parties and privies; privies in blood, privies in estate, and privies in law.@ Freeman, 171 S.W.3d 651, 654 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2005, pet. denied) (quoting Wallace v. Pruitt, 1 Tex. Civ.

2015Whiteside v. Bell, 162 Tex. 411 , 347 S.W.2d 568, 570 (Tex., 1961) (noting that deed conveying 22 land subject to a lien for unpaid purchase money is treated as an executory contract); Johnson v. Lockhart, 40 S.W. 640 (Tex. 1897) (applying executory contract rule to purchase money dispute); see also, Davis v. Huey, 620 S.W.2d 561, 565-66 (Tex. 1981) (a grantee is "bound by those restrictive covenants running with the property of which he has actual or constructive notice," and is estopped from denying the recitals that appear in his chain of title).

2015Whiteside v. Bell, 162 Tex. 411 , 347 S.W.2d 568, 570 (Tex., 1961) (noting that deed conveying 22 land subject to a lien for unpaid purchase money is treated as an executory contract); Johnson v. Lockhart, 40 S.W. 640 (Tex. 1897) (applying executory contract rule to purchase money dispute); see also, Davis v. Huey, 620 S.W.2d 561, 565-66 (Tex. 1981) (a grantee is "bound by those restrictive covenants running with the property of which he has actual or constructive notice," and is estopped from denying the recitals that appear in his chain of title).

2015Whiteside v. Bell, 162 Tex. 411 , 347 S.W.2d 568, 570 (Tex., 1961) (noting that deed conveying 22 land subject to a lien for unpaid purchase money is treated as an executory contract); Johnson v. Lockhart, 40 S.W. 640 (Tex. 1897) (applying executory contract rule to purchase money dispute); see also, Davis v. Huey, 620 S.W.2d 561, 565-66 (Tex. 1981) (a grantee is "bound by those restrictive covenants running with the property of which he has actual or constructive notice," and is estopped from denying the recitals that appear in his chain of title).

2011Estoppel by deed precludes parties from alleging title “in derogation of the deed [or] denypng] the truth of any material fact asserted in it.” Surtees v. Hobson, 4 S.W.2d 245, 246 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1928), aff'd, 13 S.W.2d 345 (Tex.Comm’n App.1929).

2002Williams v. Hardie, 85 Tex. 499 , 22 S.W. 399, 401 (1893); see also Adams v. Duncan, 147 Tex. 332 , 215 S.W.2d 599, 603 (1948); Greene v. White, 137 Tex. 361, 153 *800 S.W.2d 575, 583-86 (1941).

2002Williams v. Hardie, 85 Tex. 499 , 22 S.W. 399, 401 (1893); see also Adams v. Duncan, 147 Tex. 332 , 215 S.W.2d 599, 603 (1948); Greene v. White, 137 Tex. 361, 153 *800 S.W.2d 575, 583-86 (1941).