Chambers county real property records

Official Public Record Search. Certification Date Range: . Document Groups: All ; REAL PROPERTY Chambers County, Texas. All Rights Reserved.
Table of contents

Knott, S. Kenneco Energy, Inc. The determination of the date on which a cause of action accrued is typically a question of law. Villarreal v. Wells Fargo Brokerage Servs. The documents that the Christersons signed at closing include a warranty deed with vendor's lien, a deed of trust, and a credit sale disclosure. The warranty deed recites that the consideration includes.

The Difficulty Selling Vacant Land - Tax Deed and Lien Investing

The credit sale disclosure, which the Christersons also received at closing, sets forth the loan's terms as follows:. Texas adheres to the longstanding rule that, absent proof of mental incapacity, a party who signs a contract is presumed to have read it and understood it. Cosgrove v. Cade, S. The Christersons therefore are charged, as a matter of law, with knowing and understanding the contents of the deed and other closing documents upon their signing. Because the law presumes that the Christersons read and understood the closing documents, as a matter of law, they knew or should have known when they executed those documents of any discrepancy between the terms of the loan as they understood them and the terms set forth in the closing documents.

The loan document disclosure negates application of the discovery rule in this case as a basis for deferring accrual of the limitations period beyond the closing date. Int'l, Inc. Altai, Inc. Garden Ridge, L. Similarly, when a party has had a reasonable opportunity to review a contract's terms before signing the contract, the party may not avoid those terms by claiming fraudulent inducement. See Nat'l Prop.

  • list of prices of mobile phones in india.
  • timothy g brooks marriage liberty missouri.
  • Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.)..

Holdings, L. Westergren, S. Under the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Cosgrove v.

What Is an Abstract of Judgment in Texas?

Cade, the Speers' demand for payment did not revive the accrual date. The Christersons also claim that the Speers' demands in and that the Christersons increase their payments under threat of foreclosure constitute separate breaches of the loan agreement and revive their claims. The Texas Supreme Court, however, rejected a similar assertion in Cosgrove.

In Cosgrove, the parties executed a deed that failed to reflect their agreement that the sellers would retain all mineral rights to the property. See S.

  • palm beach county information on felony cases.
  • picture of sex offender in my area!
  • Texas Secretary of State?
  • Probate Court Info for Chambers County, Alabama?
  • Ala. Code ยง 45-9-241?
  • white pages rio rancho new mexico!

When the sellers discovered the omission four years later, they asked the buyer to execute a correction deed, but the buyer refused. The sellers sued, seeking reformation of the deed and damages for breach of contract, civil theft, and tortious interference with contract, among other claims. Because more than four years had passed since execution of the original deed, the buyer moved for summary judgment on limitations. The sellers responded that their causes of action did not accrue until the buyer refused to execute the correction deed.

The Texas Supreme Court rejected the contention that the later refusal to reform the deed delayed the accrual date for limitation purposes. Like the plaintiffs in Cosgrove, the Christersons seek to recast later conduct performed under the terms of the financing agreement as an independent breach of the original sale and financing agreement.

We apply the holding in Cosgrove to the facts presented in this case and reject the contention that the Christersons' claims did not accrue until The Christersons' claims for breach of contract accrued, and thus the limitations period commenced, when the Speers and the Christersons signed the closing documents in The closing documents, including the deed of trust, reflect repayment terms that differ from the terms of the agreement the Christersons claimed to have made.

The Christersons' claim that the accrual of their tort claims was delayed under a continuing tort theory also is unavailing. Veigel Inter Vivos Tr. Repeated injury proximately caused by repetitive wrongful or tortious acts may constitute a continuing tort, but a continuing injury arising from one wrongful act does not. Compare Upjohn Co.

More Maps like this

Freeman, S. Unlike conduct constituting a continuing tort, the Christersons' monthly payments, as well as the Speers' later demand for the catch-up payment, all stem from conduct that occurred before and at the closing and pursuant to the written documents that both parties executed at that time.

Chambers County - Portal

We hold that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment based on the statute of limitations bar applicable to their claims. The trial court acted within its discretion in rejecting a claim of spoliation as a basis for denying summary judgment on limitations. The Christersons complain of the trial court's implicit refusal to deny summary judgment as a spoliation sanction.

Because the trial court granted the Speers' motion for summary judgment, we presume that the court considered and rejected the Speer's request for a spoliation presumption. See Clark v. Randalls Food, S. We review a trial court's ruling on a request for a spoliation remedy for an abuse of discretion.

See Brookshire Bros. Aldridge, S. Parties have a duty to reasonably preserve discoverable evidence. Johnson, S. The party alleging spoliation bears the burden of establishing that the nonproducing party had a duty to preserve the evidence. The Christersons point to the Speers' failure to produce the promissory note in response to discovery requests, coupled with the Speers' admission that they never provided the Christersons with a copy of the promissory note. The Christersons contend that these admissions show that the Speers caused the destruction of material evidence, precluding summary judgment on limitations.

The evidence about the note in the record is that the Speers, after a thorough search, were unable to find it. This evidence does not demonstrate that the Speers destroyed the note or owed a duty to preserve it beyond the passing of the limitations period. Because the Christersons did not meet their burden to adduce evidence demonstrating that spoliation occurred, the trial court did not err in rejecting their spoliation request. We hold that transfer of venue from Harris County to Chambers County was proper and that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment based on the applicable statutes of limitations.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. The Christersons do not brief any claim of error concerning the trial court's summary judgment on their federal claims for violations of the Truth in Lending Act, Regulation Z, or under RICO. In their reply brief, the Christersons, citing T.


Stanley Boot Co. Bank of El Paso, S. A written contract, however, may be comprised of multiple documents. See Fort Worth Indep. City of Fort Worth, 22 S. The other documents executed at closing, including the warranty deed with vendor's lien and the credit sale disclosure, identify the amount financed and the interest rate that applies to the loan, and thus supply the terms missing from the deed of trust.


We construe these documents together and conclude that they contain sufficient specificity in the material terms necessary to notify the Christersons of their repayment obligations. See Creditwatch, Inc. Jackson, S. By submitting this form, you agree to FindLaw. We respect your privacy. Thank you for subscribing!

Recorder Services

Explore Resources For Practice Management. Legal Technology. Corporate Counsel. Reset A A Font size: Print.

  • Where to file?!
  • waukesha county birth record amber oleniczak;
  • what is the process of an uncontested divorce illinois!
  • can people find jobs if convicted of a felony.
  • Chambers County.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston 1st Dist.