James D. Yarbrough and Tarris Woods v. James C. Brooks
14-19-00748-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 2, 2021Background
- Hilda Brooks died owning real property at 2919 Avenue K, Galveston; an heirship affidavit signed by Barbara Baldwin (recorded 2011) conflicted with Brooks’s later heirship application.
- County tax sale occurred June 2011; the property was redeemed Sept. 12, 2011. On that date James C. Brooks signed a warranty deed purporting to convey the property to Tarris Woods (the "Woods Deed"), recorded Sept. 23, 2011.
- Woods later conveyed the property to James Yarbrough by warranty deed with vendor’s lien on Sept. 12, 2013 (the "Yarbrough Deed"); Yarbrough currently possesses the property.
- In April 2018 Brooks sued to set aside the Baldwin affidavit and both deeds as void (alleging forgery, blanks filled later, lack of ownership when signed, and noncompliance with Estates Code). Yarbrough intervened and asserted limitations, bona fide purchaser, and adverse-possession defenses.
- The probate court granted summary judgment voiding both deeds and declaring defendants had no legal interest; it ordered the Baldwin affidavit corrected. Yarbrough appealed. The appellate court held Brooks did not conclusively prove the deeds were void, affirmed the ruling that the affidavit is defective and the denial of Yarbrough’s cross-motion, reversed the remainder, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brooks) | Defendant's Argument (Woods/Yarbrough) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Woods Deed is void (misnomer, blank when signed, forged, or grantor lacked title) | Deed is void: name miswritten, form was blank when Brooks signed and later completed, possibly forged, and Brooks lacked ownership at signing | Deed is valid or at most voidable: signed and acknowledged, recorded, identifies parties and property; falsity/after-completion would make it voidable (fraud), not void | Trial court erred: Brooks failed to conclusively prove deed void; fact issues remain (misnomer slight, blank-form disputed, notary acknowledgment presumptive, signature of one’s own name not forgery) |
| Whether the Yarbrough Deed is void (derivative of Woods Deed) | Yarbrough Deed is void because Woods Deed is void | If Woods Deed is voidable, Yarbrough is protected (recording, title insurance, bona fide purchaser) | Because Woods Deed not proved void as a matter of law, Yarbrough Deed likewise cannot be declared void on summary judgment; remand for factfinder |
| Whether Brooks’s claims are time-barred (limitations) | N/A (Brooks argued deeds are void, which would not be time-barred) | If deeds are only voidable, four-year limitations bar Brooks’s suit to cancel them | Trial court rightly denied Yarbrough summary judgment on limitations because whether the deed is void or voidable is a fact question; premature to apply limitations |
| Whether Yarbrough proved title by adverse possession (3-year color-of-title rule) | N/A | Yarbrough held property under color of title and possession for statutory period | Trial court properly denied summary judgment on adverse possession because a void deed cannot furnish color of title; whether deed is void is unresolved |
Key Cases Cited
- Tarr v. Timberwood Park Owners Assoc., 556 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. 2018) (standard for reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment)
- City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000) (movant must show no genuine fact issue exists)
- Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. 1995) (burden-shifting when movant establishes entitlement)
- AIC Mgmt. v. Crews, 246 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2008) (sufficiency of land description tested by ability to identify property with reasonable certainty)
- Nobles v. Marcus, 533 S.W.2d 923 (Tex. 1976) (signing one’s own name without authority makes an instrument voidable, not a forgery)
- Watson v. Tipton, 274 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (notary acknowledgment is prima facie evidence of execution and delivery)
- Stephens Cty. Museum, Inc. v. Swenson, 517 S.W.2d 257 (Tex. 1974) (recording creates presumption of delivery and intent to convey)
- Wood v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 505 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. 2016) (distinguishes void instruments, which can be attacked at any time, from voidable instruments subject to limitations)