Tex. Codes » Property Code · TITLE 2. CONVEYANCES · CHAPTER 5. CONVEYANCES
Texas Codes

Tex. Prop. Code § 5.031 (2026)

Correction Instruments Recorded Before September 1, 2011

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

Sec. 5.031. CORRECTION INSTRUMENTS RECORDED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1, 2011. A correction instrument recorded before September 1, 2011, that substantially complies with Section 5.028 or 5.029 and that purports to correct a recorded original instrument of conveyance is effective to the same extent as provided by Section 5.030 unless a court of competent jurisdiction renders a final judgment determining that the correction instrument does not substantially comply with Section 5.028 or 5.029.

Added by Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 194 (S.B. 1496), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2011.

SUBCHAPTER C. FUTURE ESTATES


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2016–2023 · leading case: Tanya L. McCabe Trust, McCabe Fam. Trust, & the Rochford Living Trust v. Ranger Energy LLC, 531 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tanya L. McCabe Trust, McCabe Fam. Trust, & the Rochford Living Trust v. Ranger Energy LLC, 531 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. App. 2016). · cites it 2× ““The general rule is that in a contest over rights or 21 The statute provides that “substantial compliance” is sufficient to effectuate a correction instrument made prior to the statute’s effective date of September 1, 2011.”
Juan Heredia & Flor Flores v. Michael Zimprich, 559 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App. 2018). “See TEX.PROP.CODE ANN. §5.031 (West 2014). The trial in this case began well after the legislative modification of the Myrad Properties rule, yet the Heredias’ brief does not acknowledge the limitation on Myrad Properties and they do not state their arguments in terms of the…”
Tregellas v. Archer, 507 S.W.3d 423 (Tex. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “Among Tregellas’s arguments is that the correction instrument signed by the Tidwells and recorded in Hansford County on September 14, 2004, was ineffective because it did not comply with the requirements of Texas Property Code section 5.031. Tex. Prop.”
Ronald Ralph Tregellas & Wife, Donnita Tregellas v. Carl M. Archer Trust No. Three & Mary Frances G. Archer Trust No. Three, Mary Archer Dixon & Carla ArcherJohnson, Trs. (Tex. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “Among Tregellas’s arguments is that the correction instrument signed by the Tidwells and recorded in Hansford County on September 14, 2004, was ineffective because it did not comply with the requirements of Texas Property Code section 5.031. TEX. PROP.”
Esquivel v. Fudge (N.D. Tex. 2023). · cites it 2× “028, it substantially complies with the statute, if not literally, under Texas Property Code § 5.031 and thus still has its curative effect.”
AIC Mgmt. Co. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC & Reddy Greensbrook, LTD., Arete Real Est. & Dev., & Muduganti Reddy (Tex. App. 2018). “TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 5.031. Generally, “‘[s]ubstantial compliance’ means that one has performed the ‘essential requirements’ of a statute and it ‘excuse[s] those 22 deviations from the performance required by statute which do not seriously hinder the legislature’s purpose in…”
Jean Slack Lockhart, in Her Capacities as Tr. of the Lockhart Fam. Bypass Trust & as Indep. of the Est. of Warren L. Lockhart v. Chisos Minerals, LLC (Tex. App. 2021). “” TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 5.031. From this, she argues that a pre-September 1, 2011, correction deed that does not substantially comply is void.”
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.