Armstrong DLO Properties, LLC v. Todd A. Furniss and Heather E. Furniss
05-13-01581-CV
| Tex. App. | Jan 21, 2015Background
- Dispute over ownership of a roughly 16' x 200' continuous strip of land (the “front strip”) between 4236 Armstrong (Furnisses) and 4242 Armstrong (formerly Obenchain/ADLO) in Highland Park, Dallas County.
- ADLO (owner: Obenchain) sued to quiet title/declaratory relief in 2012, claiming it received the front strip in 2012; alleged the Furnisses recently asserted ownership.
- The Furnisses countered that title to the front strip was in their chain of title via a 1949 warranty deed (recorded in 1971) and moved for no-evidence and traditional partial summary judgment validating that deed and declaring them fee simple owners of the front strip.
- ADLO challenged the 1949 deed’s validity (acknowledgment, notarization timing, possible forgery) and asserted issues of adverse possession and bona fide purchaser status; ADLO’s response was filed late and the parties disputed its consideration.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to the Furnisses validating the 1949 deed and declaring them owners of the front strip, denied fees initially, later awarded the Furnisses $40,670 in attorney’s fees; ADLO appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ADLO) | Defendant's Argument (Furniss) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the trial court erred in granting the Furnisses’ combined no‑evidence and traditional summary judgment | Furniss’ no‑evidence motion was deficient and ADLO presented > scintilla evidence (forgery, improper notarization, tax records, title history) raising fact issues | Furnisses argued they showed an unbroken record chain to the front strip and ADLO’s late-filed evidence should be disregarded | Affirmed: no‑evidence motion sufficient; ADLO failed to produce more than a scintilla to raise fact issues and traditional grounds also supported judgment |
| 2. Whether the trial court improperly acted sua sponte or relied on evidence not presented (judicial notice / credibility findings) | Trial judge relied on an unrelated prior judgment and drew adverse credibility findings without procedural safeguards; that deprived ADLO of due process | Furnisses: court ruled on record title; any references to prior litigation did not control the summary judgment ruling and the court may take judicial notice | Rejected: appellate court found the record does not show the court relied on extraneous judgment for granting summary judgment and no reversible error shown |
| 3. Whether ADLO’s late-filed summary judgment response was considered and thus should preclude judgment | Late response was filed without leave; trial court nonetheless considered it and ADLO relied on that evidence | Furnisses moved to strike as untimely and argued evidence should be disregarded; they preserved challenge | Not necessary to decide: appellate court assumed arguendo the late evidence was considered but held ADLO’s evidence still insufficient to avoid summary judgment |
| 4. Whether the trial court properly awarded attorney’s fees under the Declaratory Judgments Act | Fees are improper because the dispute is essentially a trespass‑to‑try‑title (title/ownership) claim, for which attorney’s fees under the Act are not recoverable | Furnisses argued §37.004 allows declaratory actions in boundary disputes and authorizes fees | Reversed/Rendered: fees vacated. Court held this was a title/ownership dispute (not a pure boundary dispute) so fees under the Declaratory Judgments Act were not recoverable |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Amerman, 133 S.W.3d 262 (Tex. 2004) (trespass‑to‑try‑title governs title disputes and limits use of declaratory relief for attorney’s fees)
- Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Sawyer Trust, 354 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. 2011) (§37.004(c) applies only when the sole title issue is boundary line location; not applicable where dispute is ownership of whole parcel)
- Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartments Corp., 417 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. 2013) (declaring that where the essence of the suit is determination of possessory rights/title, attorney’s fees under the Declaratory Judgments Act are not available)
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (appellate review principle: affirm if any theory presented to trial court and preserved on appeal supports summary judgment)
- Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (standard for abuse of discretion review of attorney’s‑fees awards)