Tex. Codes » Property Code · TITLE 3. PUBLIC RECORDS · CHAPTER 13. EFFECTS OF RECORDING
Texas Codes

Tex. Prop. Code § 13.002 (2026)

Effect Of Recorded Instrument

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 13.002. EFFECT OF RECORDED INSTRUMENT. An instrument that is properly recorded in the proper county is:

(1) notice to all persons of the existence of the instrument; and

(2) subject to inspection by the public.

Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3495, ch. 576, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 715, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 960, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 127 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Sani v. Powell, 153 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sani v. Powell, 153 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 13.002 (Vernon 1984) (recording of instrument is notice to all persons of the instrument).”
Perryman v. Spart an Tex. Six Capital Partners, Ltd., 546 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. 2018). “The Perrymans and EOG acknowledge that the deeds did not mention or expressly exclude the fractional royalty interests then owned by other parties, but they contend that the deeds' reference to the interests "now owned by Grantor" put the grantees on notice that the grantors did…”
Boyd v. Boyd, 131 S.W.3d 605 (Tex. App. 2004). “Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 13.002 (Vernon 2004); Tex.”
Jones v. Fuller, 856 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “Tex.PROP.Code Ann. § 13.002 (Vernon 1984); Tuggle v.”
Realty Portfolio, Inc. v. Hamilton, 125 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “1981); Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 13.002. The deed of trust to the Hamilton property was properly recorded in Harris County, Texas, in 1966.”
Bank of Am. v. Babu, 340 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 13.002 (West 2004); AMC Mortg.”
Sun Expl. & Prod. Co. v. Benton, 728 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1987). “” TEX.PROP. CODE ANN. § 13.002 (Vernon 1984).”
Barbara D. Cosgrove, Individually & as the Tr. of the Charles & Barbara Cosgrove Fam. Revocable Living Trust v. Michael Cade & Billie Cade, 468 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. 2015). “Tex. Prop. Code § 13.002. 4 . Tex. Civ. Prac.”
Jean v. Tyson-Jean, 118 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. 2003). “Because tax bills went to Velva and Terrell, the assumptive warranty deed was recorded. An instrument that is properly recorded in the proper county is notice to all persons of the existence of the instrument.”
Vill. of Pheasant Run Homeowners Ass'n v. Kastor, 47 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. App. 2001). “Tex. PropR. Code Ann. § 13.002 (Vernon Supp.”
Am. Homeowner Pres. Fund, LP v. Pirkle, 475 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “at 451 (citing Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 13.002). 11 As one commentator has observed, “The central purpose of law is to guide behavior.”
Oscar Leo Quintanilla v. Andrew Bradford West, 534 S.W.3d 34 (Tex. App. 2017). “Dallas 1992, writ denied) (purpose of filing financing statément is to put third party on notice of potential lien or security agreement); see also Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 13.002 (West 2014) (purpose of a recorded instrument is “notice to all persons of the existence of the…”
Show all 127 citing cases →
— Tex. Prop. Code § 13.002(1) — 15 cases
Am. Homeowner Pres. Fund, LP v. Pirkle, 475 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. App. 2015). “at 451 (citing Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 13.002). 11 As one commentator has observed, “The central purpose of law is to guide behavior.”
United States of Am., on Behalf of Small Bus. Admin. v. Com. Tech., Inc., Com. Tech., Inc., 354 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2003).
Noble Energy, Inc. v. Conocophillips Co., 532 S.W.3d 771 (Tex. 2017).
Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Union Bank of California, N.A. (In Re Cornerstone E & P Co.), 435 B.R. 390 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2010).
Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. (In re Quicksilver Resources Inc.), 544 B.R. 781 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016).
— Tex. Prop. Code § 13.002(a) — 1 case
Austin v. Coface Seguro de Credito Mexico, S.A. de C.V., 506 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App. 2016).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.