t
decided a correction deed was warranted.
cease further running his name and only run Fred Farkle forward. Alternatively, a management decision may need to be made deciding whether to run (i) the heirs (devisees?) of John or (ii) Fred Farkle or (iii) both, to err on the side of caution. It must be remembered, the title search is trying to locate a correction deed associated with the Bank and John; not determining who should sign such a correction deed. That is, did the original parties and/or their “heirs, successors or assigns” enter into a correction deed? The most practical and cost-efficient management decision would be to instruct the title examiner to cease running John’s name as of the date of his death (2010 in the above example) and thereafter assume practicality will prevail – an assign would be the only party that could sign since John would be “unavailable”. Does Broadway stand for this proposition? No. Alternatively, management could decide that the Court would hold that John’s death triggered the “if applicable” clause and, since “heirs” appears first in the list in that clause, run each of John’s heirs (if any) to see if they signed a correction deed. And finally, the client company could decide that both John’s heirs/assigns could be/are needed to execute a valid correction deed and run all such names forward to see if in fact a correction deed can be found executed by all/some of said persons. Locating the correction deed is the function of the title examiner – deciding on the legality of the correction deed is the function of the examining attorney. Risk factor – unknown. Texas has long held, prior to the creation of the “Correction Deed Statutes”/this decision, that a title document, even if properly filed for record, was NOT constructive notice of its existence and the facts contained therein unless it was an essential link in the grantee’s direct chain of title. ( Westland Oil Development Corp v. Gulf Oil Corp, 637 S. W. 2d. 903 (Tex – 1982); Ford v. ExxonMobil Chemical Co , 235 S. W. 3d. 615 (Tex – 2007)) More specifically, a conveyance which was within a grantee’s chain of title established an irrebuttable presumption of notice of that document and its contents. ( Ford v. ExxonMobil Chemical Co., 235 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. - 2007)). (In Texas, a chain of title has been defined to be …“The successive conveyances, commencing
Are John’s heirs (devisees?) to stand in John’s place for correction deed purposes? Certainly Fred Farkle is an assign of John. Does he sign the correction deed? Stated another way, who is to “stand-in” for John to execute a correction deed with the Bank after John’s death – his heir(s) successor(s) or assign(s)? Broadway provides a partial answer to this inquiry in FN 5 of the majority opinion. Per the Court: 1. An heir is one who is entitled to inherit under the laws of intestate succession. What if John testate? Unknown. Devisees are completely omitted from the statute as possible parties in the “if applicable” provision (§5.029(b)(1)) 2. “Successors” only refers to corporation and other business entities; not individuals. Likewise, a successor in interest via merger, consolidation etc. is not an assignee.
3. An assign (assignee) for purposes of the statute is an undefined term.
If §5.029 is consulted, as of 2013 the first entity listed in the statute as a potential party to execute a correction deed is “heirs” – John’s heirs. John did not have any heirs; he died testate. Do his devisees sign on his behalf the 2013 Correction Deed in the above example? Unknown. The next pertinent entity listed is assigns since John cannot, per FN 5, have any successors. – Fred Farkle. Does Broadway indicate that Fred Farkle is the proper party to execute the correction deed, especially since John did not have any heirs? No, it does not. Broadway is limited to its facts, period. John was alive as of the date of the execution of the correction deed. There was no Fred Farkle. How are title examination procedures to be altered in light of this case?
At a minimum, once John has been determined to be deceased, the oil company decision may be to
20
N at i onal A ssociation of D i v i s i on O rder A nalys t s
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator