quiet title claim in Texas

2021See Hahn, 321 S.W.3d at 531 ; Johnson, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 10253 , at *7.

2014Quiet-title claim “In a suit to remove a cloud from his title . . . . the plaintiff must prove, as a matter of law, right, title, or ownership in himself with sufficient certainty to 5 enable the court to see that he has a right of ownership and that the alleged adverse claim is a cloud on the title that equity will remove.” Hahn v. Love, 321 S.W.3d 517, 531 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied).

2025Because the parties’ claims and defenses for their competing quiet title claims rely on the same evidence and arguments, we address them together. 4 The elements of a quiet title claim are “(1) 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.” Vernon v. Perrien, 390 S.W.3d 47 , 61–62 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, pet. denied).

2025Because the parties’ claims and defenses for their competing quiet title claims rely on the same evidence and arguments, we address them together. 4 The elements of a quiet title claim are “(1) 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.” Vernon v. Perrien, 390 S.W.3d 47 , 61–62 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012, pet. denied).

2024“A suit to clear title or quiet title—also known as a suit to remove cloud from title—relies on the invalidity of the defendant’s claim to the property.” Essex v. Crane Rental Corp. v. Carter, 371 S.W.3d 366, 388 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied).

2018The Texas courts of appeals have addressed quiet-title actions more extensively, explaining that such an action, "also known as a suit to remove cloud from title-relies on the invalidity of the defendant's claim to the property." Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Carter , 371 S.W.3d 366 , 388 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (citing Longoria v. Lasater , 292 S.W.3d 156 , 165 n.7 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2009, pet. denied) ).

2025We turn to whether Veronica conclusively proved each of these elements for her claim and negated them for the Williamses’ claim. (1) Interest in the property This first element is really one of standing: “the plaintiff must allege right, title, or ownership of the property with sufficient certainty to warrant judicial interference.” Montenegro v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 419 S.W.3d 561, 567 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013, pet. denied).

2025See, e.g., Montenegro v. Ocwen 7 Loan Servicing, LLC, 419 S.W.3d 561, 572 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013, pet. denied) (“Thus, to state a claim to quiet title, a plaintiff must establish that the challenged claim to the property is invalid or unenforceable.”); Dalio Holdings I, LLC v. BRMK Lending, LLC, No. 14-23-00007-CV, 2024 WL 4984179 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 5, 2024, no pet.) (affirming summary judgment because of party’s failure to raise fact issue about the invalidity of the other part’s claim). (3) Although the other party’s claim is facially valid, it is invalid and unen

2020See Epps v. Fowler, 351 S.W.3d 862, 868 (Tex. 2011) (“In Texas, plaintiffs may nonsuit at any time before introducing all of their evidence other than rebuttal evidence.

2016A cause of action for a quiet-title claim accrues upon the execution of a facially valid instrument “purport[ing] to convey any interest in or make any charge upon the land of a true owner.” In re Stroud Oil Props., Inc., 110 S.W.3d 18, 26 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, orig. proceeding).

2014Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996). 6 Even if the trial court’s ruling predicated on trespass to try title was incorrect, we believe it was correct on the basis of the quiet-title claim.

2011Agency of Tex. v. Walker, 228 S.W.3d 404, 406, 412 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (holding that by joining a defendant in a UDJA action, the plaintiff waived 21 that issue, so we need not address whether XTO would otherwise be entitled to relief on the elements of a quiet title claim.15 Since the Nikolais cannot deny the reservation, we conclude that the dispute about the original validity of the reservation based on the 1904 Madewell Deed, which relates to XTO‘s first and third issues, is moot.16 See Tex. R.