Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
334 S.W.3d 838
Tex. App.2011Background
- Morris owned the property at 2323 St. Francis Avenue in Dallas County on April 3, 2005, and two challenged deeds were later filed.
- An April 4, 2005 General Warranty Deed purported to convey to EDPC; the signature appeared as 'Cyndia A. Morris' and was notarized by T. Bailey.
- An April 18, 2005 Correction General Warranty Deed purported to convey to EDPC; the signature appeared as 'Cyndia A. Morris as Independent Executrix' and was notarized by notary Franklin Brown.
- EDPC conveyed the property to Richard Jordan on April 26, 2005, and Jordan later borrowed $152,000 from Argent Mortgage (predecessor to Wells Fargo) secured by a deed of trust.
- Wells Fargo foreclosed on March 7, 2006; Morris sued C. Bailey and Wells Fargo seeking to void the deeds as forged and to establish ownership free of liens; the trial court found the April 4 deed valid and the April 18 deed forged, and vested title in Wells Fargo via a substitute trustee's deed.
- On appeal, Morris challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the April 4 signature as genuine and argues the April 4 deed is void due to fraud by the notary; Wells Fargo argues it is a bona fide lender and the deed is valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the April 4 signature genuine. | Morris asserts forgery and notary fraud voiding the deed. | Wells Fargo contends the signature is genuine and deed valid. | Signature genuine; deed not void for forgery. |
| If notary fraud occurred, does it void the April 4 deed. | Notary fraud defeats the certificate of acknowledgment, making the deed void ab initio. | Deeds obtained by fraud are voidable, not void; notary fraud does not invalidate the deed. | Not void ab initio; deed not void for notary fraud. |
Key Cases Cited
- 1st Coppell Bank v. Smith, 742 S.W.2d 454 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987) (void instrument passes no title; innocent grantee Purchaser irrelevant)
- Ford v. Exxon Mobil Chem. Co., 235 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. 2007) (deeds obtained by fraud are voidable, not void)
- Nobles v. Marcus, 533 S.W.2d 923 (Tex. 1976) (fraud doctrine; title consequences)
- Bell v. Sharif-Munir-Davidson Dev. Corp., 738 S.W.2d 326 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987) (certificate of acknowledgment prima facie validity; must prove otherwise)
- Dow Chemical Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (standards for legal sufficiency and reviewing evidence)
- Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1989) (standards for legal and factual sufficiency when burden of proof rests on party)
- Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986) (Pool framework for reviewing factual sufficiency)
- Leyva v. Pacheco, 163 Tex. 638, 358 S.W.2d 547 (Tex. 1962) (credibility and weight of witness testimony; appellate review limits)
- McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694 (Tex. 1986) (expert testimony not always controlling; fact finder credibility)
- Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402 (Tex. 1998) (appellate review of credibility and weight of testimony)
- Bender v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 600 S.W.2d 257 (Tex. 1980) (conflict findings; harmonization if possible)
- Stout v. Oliveira, 153 S.W.2d 590 (Tex. Civ. App.-El Paso 1941) (writ denial considerations)
- Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 889 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994) (notary defect; validity of subsequent purchasers)
- Hennessy v. Blair, 107 Tex. 39, 173 S.W. 871 (Tex. 1915) (old-notary and acknowledgment principles)