Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In August 2002, by general warranty deed appellee Kyle McDonnold purchased from Barry McDannald a 999.25 acre tract in Jeff Davis County, which contained a 343.29 acre tract of land. Appellant Elizabeth Robison Martin owned an approximately 2,232 acre tract to the south and east of Survey 24, which she acquired by general warranty deed from her maternal uncle David Harper Medley in 1991. A 242.32 acre tract of McDonnold’s deeded land out of Survey 24 (the disputed land) is enclosed within fences with Martin’s land. In November 2002, Martin’s father Thomas Robison, acting under her authority locked the gate to the disputed land. In April 2004, McDannald executed a deed without warranty to McDonnold for the disputed land, conveying all of his interest in the disputed land. Then in August 2004, McDonnold filed a trespass to try title suit, later amended, in which he alleged that on or about Nov. 27, 2002, he was in actual possession or legally entitled to possession of the disputed land, but on that date, Martin unlawfully entered upon and dispossessed him of the land and continues to withhold possession from him. After a hearing, the trial court granted McDonnold’s traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motions and ordered that McDonnold recover title to and possession of the disputed land and that Appellants take nothing by their counterclaims. An appeal followed. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court concluded that McDonnald’s no-evidence motion was sufficiently specific in that is clearly identified the elements that were lacking in Martin’s adverse possession limitations defense. To raise a fact issue as to the validity of the document based on an allegedly forged signature, Martin would have had to have presented some evidence. Martin failed to present evidence on that point and her challenge to the authenticity of the document failed to raise a fact issue to defeat the no-evidence motion on their adverse possession claim. Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court did not err in granting the dual motion for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment in favor of McDonnold. In addition, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Martin’s special exceptions to McDonnold’s petition. McDonnold’s petition sufficiently identified the parties, plaintiffs’ claim of ownership to the disputed land and described the land by reference to the metes and bounds description attached to McDonnold’s 2004 deed without warranty. OPINION:Chew, C.J.; Chew, C.J., McClure, J., and Barajas, C.J. (retired).

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.