Purple Martin Land Company, LLC v. Diana Gordon Offord Winter Gordon, Jr. Joyce Stein

Citation: Not availableDocket: 14-20-00265-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 22, 2021; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of Texas reversed and remanded a trial court decision regarding a property dispute involving two tracts of land in Fort Bend County. The appellant, Purple Martin Land Company, LLC, contested the trial court’s dismissal of its claims against the appellees, Diana Gordon Offord, Winter Gordon Jr., and Joyce Stein, asserting errors related to standing and evidentiary sufficiency. The contested properties originated from Nathan and Agnes Lewis, who died intestate in 1918 and 1919, respectively, leaving their six children as tenants in common. The children partitioned the property into six equal lots. Purple Martin acquired interests from descendants of Nathan and Agnes’s children, Frank and Fannie, while the Gordons initiated a lawsuit in 2015 seeking a declaratory judgment to quiet title to specific lots of the property. The Gordons claimed ownership based on exclusive use and possession of certain lots for over 25 to 40 years. The court's ruling now mandates further proceedings to assess the merits of Purple Martin’s claims and the Gordons' assertions of ownership.

In October 2018, Purple Martin initiated legal action against the Gordons, claiming trespass to try title, a quiet title action, and a declaratory judgment to determine ownership of a Property. Purple Martin contended that Nathan and Agnes's heirs had inherited undivided interests in the Property, while Purple Martin had acquired interests through descendants of Frank and Fannie. The Gordons demanded that Purple Martin relinquish its interest based on adverse possession claims and sought to invalidate the deeds under which Purple Martin asserted ownership. The Gordons filed a general denial, contesting Purple Martin’s standing. In January 2019, the trial court consolidated the lawsuits. 

On August 16, 2019, the Gordons submitted a 'Plea to the Jurisdiction,' arguing that Purple Martin lacked standing and that the case should be dismissed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) as it pertained to public interest issues. They asserted that Purple Martin failed to provide sufficient evidence for their claims and that the Gordons had adversely possessed the Property for over ten years, thus owning it in fee simple. Additionally, the Gordons accused Purple Martin of attempting to fraudulently claim property ownership. 

Purple Martin responded to the plea, but the Gordons later supplemented their argument by asserting further grounds for dismissal, including the claim that a partition had destroyed the Nathan Lewis Estate and that Diana had acquired a complete interest in a specific parcel through foreclosure. 

During a hearing on the Gordons’ plea, the trial court heard testimony from six witnesses. Evidence presented included genealogical records of Nathan and Agnes's descendants, deeds from their descendants to Purple Martin, and a 1982 property survey. Testimony from a Texas State Title Company executive revealed that while a deed conveying the Property to Nathan and Agnes existed, no subsequent deeds, such as those for foreclosure or partition, were found. Records from searches of the Fort Bend County Appraisal District and real property records were also submitted, showing the Property divided into six lots for tax assessment.

Diana, a descendant of Charity (daughter of Nathan and Agnes), testified about her lifelong residence on one of the disputed lots. She described how each of Nathan and Agnes’s six children had their own designated area on the property. Diana indicated that Steinkamp's 1982 survey, which divided the land into six lots per tract, was accepted by the Fort Bend Central Appraisal District, which began taxing the lots accordingly. However, some heirs failed to pay taxes, leading to a lawsuit against the entire estate, which Diana and Winter addressed by paying the taxes since 1982. 

The appraisal district's records show the owner as 'LEWIS NATHAN ESTATE,' with specific legal descriptions attributing lots to Nathan and Agnes’s children, including listings for Fannie and Charity. Although Diana did not specify her lot, evidence suggests she lived on lot four of the 20.295-acre tract, originally belonging to Charity. The tax office, along with Lamar Consolidated Independent School District, sued Diana for unpaid taxes, leading to a 1993 lawsuit for ten of the twelve lots, which included multiple defendants. Diana noted that she and Winter are attempting to satisfy a $300,000 judgment on another lot from the 20.295-acre tract, having already paid over $100,000 toward it.

Diana's name appears in some appraisal district records because she requested ownership of property upon paying off tax suits. Additionally, a handwritten note from 'D. Gordon Offord' indicated a willingness to pay taxes on a lot if awarded ownership. The Lamar ISD lawsuit was eventually dismissed for want of prosecution.

On January 24, 2020, the trial court dismissed claims from Purple Martin due to jurisdiction issues, and a final judgment was issued, declaring the partition executed by Nathan and Agnes’s children voided Purple Martin's interest and confirmed the Gordons' ownership of five lots in each tract.

The trial court's judgment established that the Gordons hold title to ten lots as a muniment of title. Findings issued on February 17, 2020, confirmed that Nathan and Agnes, the original owners of the 'Nathan Lewis Estate,' died intestate, leaving behind two tracts of land in Fort Bend County: a 20.295-acre tract and a 19.14-acre tract. Their six children—Katie, Luviolet, Fannie, Charity, Frank, and Simon—became joint owners with equal rights to possession, leading to a partition agreement that divided the estate into twelve lots. The partition agreement, last possessed by Frank's son, Tom Lewis, Sr., was not recorded and is now lost. Purple Martin's ownership interest was declared invalid due to this partition, which is final. Although the partition agreement was not recorded as per Texas law, Purple Martin was not deemed 'personally aggrieved.' A 1982 survey recognized the twelve tracts, which have been acknowledged by local taxing authorities since then. The Gordons' ownership of ten lots is attributed to adverse possession since 1982, along with acquisition through wills and tax foreclosure. Purple Martin’s motion for a new trial was overruled by operation of law.

A plea to the jurisdiction is a procedural tool aimed at dismissing a cause of action, questioning the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. It can challenge either the pleadings or jurisdictional facts. The court reviews jurisdictional issues as questions of law, assessing whether the pleadings affirmatively demonstrate jurisdiction. If a defendant contests jurisdictional facts with evidence, the review process aligns with summary judgment standards. If there is no disputed evidence, the court may rule on the plea as a matter of law; however, if a fact issue exists, it must be resolved by the fact finder. In cases where the facts related to merits and jurisdiction are intertwined, the plaintiff must only show a material dispute regarding jurisdiction.

In cases where a jurisdictional challenge relates to the merits of a plaintiff's cause of action and includes evidence, the trial court evaluates that evidence to identify any factual disputes. Standing is a legal question considered de novo, and it is essential for subject matter jurisdiction; a plaintiff lacking standing cannot bring a claim. In Texas, standing requires a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent, traceable to the defendant's conduct, and likely to be remedied by the court. A lack of standing in a jurisdictional context arises when the plaintiff's claim of injury is insubstantial, not merely when they may not prevail on the merits.

In the case at hand, the Gordons contested Purple Martin's ownership of the Property based on a partition agreement that allegedly nullified Purple Martin’s deeds, asserting their own ownership through various means, including a tax foreclosure sale and adverse possession. The trial court upheld the Gordons' position, concluding that Purple Martin lacked standing to pursue its trespass-to-try-title claims. However, on appeal, Purple Martin challenges the determination of standing, arguing that the Gordons' claims focus more on their own title disputes than on Purple Martin's standing. The necessary elements to prevail in a trespass-to-try-title action involve proving a valid chain of ownership or title through various means. The determination of whether Purple Martin has an ownership interest in the Property amidst competing claims is a factual issue to be resolved in the ongoing litigation. The statute governing trespass-to-try-title actions applies when a claimant seeks to establish ownership or possessory rights to real property.

A claim of title by adverse possession requires a statutory trespass-to-try-title action to resolve disputes over land ownership. A suit to quiet title serves to invalidate the defendant's claim. Purple Martin demonstrated a factual issue regarding its ownership interest in the Property, establishing a real controversy with the Gordons over competing title claims, thus granting Purple Martin standing. The Tompkinses also have standing, having asserted ownership and a related injury, presenting a real controversy with the County.

The trial court found that Nathan and Agnes's children entered a partition agreement dividing the Property into twelve lots, which it ruled voided Purple Martin’s deeds. Joint ownership typically creates a joint tenancy or co-tenancy, allowing co-tenants to possess and partition property. While partitioning can be done through a written agreement, it does not transfer title but dissolves the tenancy in common. Assuming the partition occurred, it did not void Purple Martin’s deeds, as it did not eliminate the interests of Frank or Fannie’s heirs, who were designated lots in the partition. The court erred in declaring Purple Martin’s deeds void due to the alleged partition.

Regarding the Gordons, they contended that a foreclosure sale was unnecessary because Frank Lewis had conveyed any interests to Diana Gordon Offord following a judgment, suggesting that a deed in satisfaction of debt suffices to transfer title without a sheriff's sale. The trial court found that the Gordons had held peaceable and adverse possession of ten out of twelve tracts of the property for over twenty-five years, without challenge.

The Gordons consistently paid property taxes and obtained Homestead and Agricultural Exemptions from the Fort Bend Central Appraisal District. They acquired ownership through will or in lieu of property tax foreclosure. However, there is no evidence that Frank conveyed his interest to Diana post-foreclosure, nor did Diana receive a deed or title through a foreclosure sale; she confirmed she was never given a deed. Diana sought to acquire the Property by offering to pay past-due taxes in a separate suit, but the court dismissed that case for lack of prosecution. The trial court incorrectly found that Purple Martin lacked standing based on these grounds.

Regarding inheritance, the trial court concluded that the Gordons owned ten of twelve lots by will, though evidence indicates Diana only inherited Charity's interest, not Frank and Fannie's. Therefore, the trial court erred in its findings about the Gordons’ inheritance and Purple Martin’s standing.

On the issue of adverse possession, the Gordons claimed they met the statutory requirements, yet there was no evidence they filed the necessary affidavit as mandated. Their claim constitutes a competing claim, and the trial court's finding that Purple Martin lacked standing based on this was erroneous. The determination of adverse possession is typically a factual issue.

In summary, the trial court's dismissal of Purple Martin's claims was incorrect, and the order granting the Gordons ownership of ten lots is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings.