Gutierrez v. Stewart Title Co., 550 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.).
The testatrix’s will devised certain real property
to two of her children and then provided that:
None of the real property is to be sold or
mortgaged, all property is to be kept in the Gutierrez family. When one
of my children dies, that individual’s property is to be divided among
the survivors. When the last of my children is the only one remaining,
then the property can be sold or do whatever that individual desires,
without restrictions.
Despite this provision, the two devisees conveyed
the property. After one of the devisee’s died, another sibling claimed
an interest in the property asserting that the sales of the properties
were void as the devisees did not have the authority to sell the
property. This sibling then sued the title company asserting that the
company misrepresented to the devisees that they could actually sell the
properties despite the will provision. The trial court granted the title
company’s request for a summary judgment finding that the statute of
limitations to raise a claim that the sale was void had elapsed.
The appellate court affirmed. The court began its
analysis by recognizing that the testatrix’s grant potentially created a
(1) fee simple, (2) determinable fee subject to an executory limitation,
or (3) life estate. Using the logic of the 2018 Texas Supreme Court case
of Knopf v. Gray, 545 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. 2018), the court held that
the grant created a life estate in the devisees with a remainder
interest in the other siblings regardless of whether they were named
devisees.
The court then examined whether the complaining
sibling’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The statutory
period for the misrepresentation claim was two years. Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code § 16.003(a). The alleged misrepresentation occurred in 2000
and suit was filed in 2015 well beyond the two year period. The sibling,
however, claimed that the discovery rule should apply to give her two
years from when she discovered the conveyance. The court did not have to
resolve this issue because even if the discovery rule did apply, the
sibling’s suit was brought more than two years after the discovery.
Note: The court did not discuss the sibling’s claim
against the purchasers of the properties as that issue was severed into
a separate case which was not the subject of this appeal.
Moral: First, grants of property that have
restrictions or other conditions should be clearly stated using
well-established language to avoid interpretation and construction
issues. Second, lawsuits should be brought before the applicable statute
of limitations expires.