law-cloud-on-title
"A cloud on title exists when an outstanding claim or encumbrance is shown, which on its face, if valid, would affect
or impair the title of the owner of the property." Angell v. Bailey, 225 S.W.3d 834, 838 n.6 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2007,
no pet.). "Any deed, contract, judgment or other instrument not void on its face that purports to convey an interest
in or make any charge upon the land of a true owner, the invalidity of which would require proof, is a cloud upon the
legal title of the owner." Johnson v. Williams, No. 01-05-00445-CV, 2006 WL 1653656, at *4 (Tex. App.--Houston
[1st Dist.] June 15, 2006, pet. denied) (memo. op.) (quoting Best Inv. Co. v. Parkhill, 429 S.W.2d 531, 534 (Tex. Civ.
App.--Corpus Christi 1968, writ dism'd w.o.j.)); In re Stroud Oil Props., Inc., 110 S.W.3d 18, 26 (Tex. App.--Waco
2002, no pet.).
Hahn v. Love (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 6, 2008)(Higley)
(real estate law , judgment lien, cloud on title, constructive trust counterclaim, intervention, satisfaction of judgment)
The principal issue in a suit to remove a cloud from a title, or a suit to quiet title, is the existence of a cloud that
equity will remove. Johnson, 2006 WL 1653656, at *4; Bell, 606 S.W.2d at 952-53. An action to remove a cloud from
title exists "to enable the holder of the feeblest equity to remove from his way to legal title any unlawful hindrance
having the appearance of better right." Bell, 606 S.W.2d at 952 (quoting Thomson v. Locke, 1 S.W. 112, 115 (Tex.
1886)). In a suit to remove a cloud from his title, the plaintiff has the burden of supplying the proof necessary to
establish his superior equity and right to relief. See Bell v. Ott, 606 S.W.2d 942, 952 (Tex. App.--Waco 1980, writ
ref'd n.r.e.). That is, the plaintiff must prove, as a matter of law, right, title, or ownership in himself with sufficient
certainty to enable the court to see that he has a right of ownership and that the alleged adverse claim is a cloud on
the title that equity will remove. See Johnson, 2005 WL 1653656, at *4; Wright v. Matthews, 26 S.W.3d 575, 578
(Tex. App.--Beaumont 2000, pet. denied) (citing Ellison v. Butler, 443 S.W.2d 886, 888-89 (Tex. App.--Corpus
Christi 1969, no writ)).
TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE