THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW THE OIL, GAS AND ENERGY RESOURCES LAW SECTION OF THE STATE

BAR OF TEXAS

37TH ANNUAL ERNEST E. SMITH OIL, GAS AND MINERAL LAW INSTITUTE
Friday, April 8, 2011 houston, texas

Trespass to Try Title -the only recognized manner to clear, determine and vest disputed title in Texas; the interplay with declaratory judgments; and the procedural requirements of a TTT case.

MICHAEL D. JONES JONES GILL LLP 6363 WOODWAY, SUITE 1100 HOUSTON, TX 77057-1796 713-652-4068 MJONES@JONESGILL.COM

Note: This paper was converted from a scanned image. The conversion has been reviewed for accuracy; however, minor spelling or text-conversion errors may still be present.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i I. II. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Different Title Related Causes of Action. . . . . . . . A. Trespass to Try Title. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Quiet Title and Removal of Cloud on Title. . C. Slander of Title.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Declaratory Judgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2 3 3

III.

Attorneys Fees Litigation in Title Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Over 25 Years of Controversy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. 2007 Amendment to the Declaratory Judgments Act. C. Litigation Since Martin v. Amerman . . . . . . . . . . . .

. 4 . 4 13 13

IV. V.

Texas Property Code. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Texas A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. Rules of Civil Procedure, Trespass to Requisites of Petition. . . . . . . . . . . . Defendants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not Guilty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abstract of Title. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Common Source of Title. . . . . . . . . Default and Ex Parte Judgments. . . . Partial Estates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judgments and Damages. . . . . . . . . . Claims for Improvements... . . . . . . . Removal of Improvements. . . . . . . . Vested Rights.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Try Title. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 14 15 16 20 23 24 24 25 26 27 31 32

VI.

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

TRESPASS TO TRY TITLE I. INTRODUCTION1 Trespass to Try Title sounds like an archaic common law action derived from the Blackstone Commentaries. It sounds like something akin to trespass on the case or an action in assumpsit. Forms of action long ago dispensed in civil litigation but still alive with regard to the determination of title to real property in Texas. The Trespass to Try Title statutes and rules have been a part of Texas jurisprudence since 1840,2 so they do partake of Blackstoneesque characterization. The action of trespass is a multi-faceted creature. It sounds in tort, but as the Texas Supreme Court noted in Coastal Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Garza, 268 SW3d 1, 9-10 (Tex.2008), trespass, as categorized in the common law, addresses many wrongs.3 If you are not involved in a real property practice, you may never be exposed to this special type of litigation. If you are involved in an oil and gas practice, you probably have been exposed to or heard of a Trespass to Try Title case. II. DIFFERENT TITLE RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION A. TRESPASS TO TRY TITLE

Trespass to Try Title is the only procedural method under Texas law to establish legal title to real property between competing claimants. Trespass to Try Title is a procedural method, but there are substantive rights attached to this procedure. It has its own set of rules within the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Rules 783 to 809. Trespass to Try Title is also addressed in the Texas Property Code in Chapter 22. The Texas Property Code provides that Trespass to Try Title is the method to determine title. The statute also provides the mechanism to address the issues of damages caused by the wrongful possessor and the reimbursement for improvements made by the wrongful possessor. The statute provides rules to determine the costs to be assessed and reimbursement of the value of

Special thanks to Paul E. Thannisch. Martin v. Amerman, 133 S.W.3d 262, 265 (Tex.2004).

At common law, trespass included several actions directed to different kinds of wrongs. Trespass quare clausum fregit was limited to physical invasions of plaintiff's possessory interest in land; trespass on the case was not and provided an action for injury to a non-possessory interest, such as reversion. 1 Fowler V. Harper, Fleming James, Jr., & Oscar S. Gray, Harper, James and Gray on Torts 1.3, at 7 (3d ed. 2006) (Trespass' was really a family of writs that summoned the defendant to show why (ostensurus quare) he had done certain wrongs.).

improvements. Given that the value of improvements may be very large in the case of mineral property, the consequences of reimbursement and failure to reimburse are also addressed. This paper will concentrate on the procedural aspects of the Trespass to Try Title cause of action and will analyze the contribution statutes. In addition, this paper will discuss the interplay with the Declaratory Judgments Act, quiet title action, and removal of cloud on title action existing under Texas law. In this regard, the subject matter of this paper is generally limited to a discussion of the procedural aspects of a Trespass to Try Title cause of action. This paper will not discuss, in detail, the aspects of the cause of action to quiet title or remove a cloud on title, slander of title, boundary disputes except those the subject of a Trespass to Try Title and declaratory judgment actions except where a declaratory judgment action is attempted to declare title. B. QUIET TITLE AND REMOVAL OF CLOUD ON TITLE

The general purpose of a suit to remove a cloud on title or to quiet title to land is to correct the real property record.4 A claimants objective in such a suit is to have a false title record corrected by the filing of a judgment in the Official Public Records to explain the false recorded document. A suit to quiet title requires the allegation of an adverse claim to the plaintiffs land. The gravity of that claim must be sufficient to place the plaintiff in such a position that if the adverse claims is asserted, it may cast a cloud upon the plaintiffs enjoyment of the property.5 The principal issue in a suit to quiet title concerns the existence of a cloud on title that equity will remove. For example, a cloud on title that is made the basis of a suit to quiet title or a suit to remove cloud on title may be a restrictive covenant6, a spurious lis pendens notice,7 a mechanic and materialmans lien,8 or an oil and gas lease.9 Any claim or instrument is adverse if it might cast a cloud on the title, i.e. make the land unmarketable.
4

Wright v. Matthews, 26 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex.App.Beaumont 2000, pet.denied).

See Ellison v. Butler, 443 S.W.2d 886, 888-89 (Tex.Civ.App.Corpus Christi 1969, no writ); Ojeda v. Ojeda, 461 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Tex.Civ.App.Austin 1970, writ refd n.r.e.); Texas Co. v. Davis, 113 Tex.321, 254 S.W. 304 (1923), reh. ovrrld. 113 Tex. 321, 255 S.W. 601.
6

Jones v. Young, 541 S.W.2d 200, 201 (Tex.Civ.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1976, no writ). Daugherty v. Garrett, 336 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Tex.Civ.App.San Antonio 1960, writ dismissed). Frost v. Molina, 595 S.W.2d 184, 187-88 (Tex.Civ.App.Corpus Christi 1980, writ refd n.r.e.). McCurdy v. Morgan, 252 S.W.2d 264,266 (Tex.Civ.App.San Antonio 1952, no writ).