Allon R. Hahn, Indvidually and D/B/A Hahn's Gulf Services v. Bertrand Love, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 4702

Hahn obtained an 1988 judgment against O’Neal Session; lien attached to Session's real property via an abstract later that year.
Session conveyed the property to Mid-Town in 2002 via a general warranty deed lacking a metes-and-bounds description but referencing specific tracts and street addresses; deed not recorded until 2004.
Hahn revived his judgment in 2004 and recorded a second abstract of judgment, creating a lien that would attach to Session-owned property, but not to the property transferred to Mid-Town.
In 2004, Love purchased the Property (1615 and 1621 Wheeler) from Mid-Town for value and without knowledge of Hahn’s interest; Love’s deed to the Property was recorded after the 2004 correction deed clarifying the 2002 transfer.
Hahn sought to enjoin an execution sale and asserted TUFTA claims; Love moved for summary judgment to remove Hahn’s cloud on title; the trial court granted Love partial summary judgment on the description issue and later trial proceeded on residual issues.
The trial court ultimately ruled in Love’s favor on cloud-remove and TUFTA defenses; Hahn appealed, challenging several evidentiary, jury, and legal-description rulings; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the 2002 Deed’s property description legally sufficient?	Hahn contends description void; insufficient to pass title.	Love contends description is legally sufficient under Texas law.	Description legally sufficient; Love entitled to partial summary judgment.
Was Love’s good-faith purchase supported by the evidence and is he entitled to the bona fide purchaser defense?	Hahn asserts Love knew of Hahn’s claim and/or acted with fraudulent intent.	Love argues lack of actual/constructive notice and that he paid reasonably equivalent value.	Love’s good-faith purchase supported; Love entitled to defense under TUFTA.
Was Hahn entitled to removal of the cloud on Love’s title and related relief?	Hahn seeks declaratory relief, constructive trust, and cloud removal based on TUFTA and lien validity.	Love argues TUFTA defense defeats cloud; no entitlement to the relief sought.	Trial court did not err; cloud removed in favor of Love.
Did the trial court err in evidentiary rulings and jury-charge issues affecting insider/good-faith determinations?	Hahn argues exclusion of testimony and exhibits prejudiced the case.	Love asserts rulings were proper or harmless; evidence was cumulative or irrelevant.	Evidentiary and charge rulings affirmed; no reversible error.

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard for reviewing evidence and jury verdicts)
AIC Mgmt. v. Crews, 246 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2008) (property description sufficiency includes references to existing writings)
Reiland v. Patrick Thomas Properties, Inc., 213 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (inadequate description defeats certain rights unless ascertainable by extrinsic evidence)
Westland Oil Dev. Corp. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 637 S.W.2d 903 (Tex. 1982) (purchaser bound by chain of title and notices; duties to examine title records)
Andress v. Condos, 672 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1984) (notice limitations for subsequent interests outside chain of title)
Tamburine v. Center Sav. Ass’n, 583 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1979) (title-company duty to search and imputation of notice)
Martinka v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 836 S.W.2d 773 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (title-insurer duties and lack of imputed notice to purchaser)
Murray v. Cadle Co., 257 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (purpose and notice function of judgment abstracts)