Marshall Geisser Law | Asserting a Losing Title Claim Isn’t (Constantly) Tortious
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-39717,single-format-standard,qode-quick-links-1.0,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-11.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.2.1,vc_responsive

Asserting a Losing Title Claim Isn’t (Constantly) Tortious

Asserting a Losing Title Claim Isn’t (Constantly) Tortious

Co-author Ethan Wood

In Texas losing a title conflict does not imply you dedicated myriad abhorrent torts by asserting your rights in the very first location. The test: Were you sensible in bringing your colorable however not proper claim? So states Dorfman v. J P Morgan Chase Bank, NA.

The title conflict

In 1929, the Moravitses communicated mineral interests in Karnes County to McMullen. McMullen communicated the executive right to McMullen Oil & & Royalty Business however kept the royalties. McMullen’s royalty interest passed to his other half when he passed away and after that to the Langille Trust.

The Moravits kids took legal action against to cancel the 1929 deed. McMullen Oil disclaimed any interest in the system. A 1944 judgment (not tape-recorded till 1991) canceled the 1929 deed. The interests of McMullen Oil and the Langille Trust wound up in the Red Crest Trust, JP Morgan as trustee.

In 2010, Whale approached JP Morgan to rent the system in concern and other systems that may had currently been rented. The Whale landman discussed to JP Morgan that “there appears to be an issue with the title” however as far as JP Morgan was worried, “absolutely nothing in [their] records [showed] that the Red Crest Trust did not own that acreage.” JP Morgan rented to Whale, and declined to carry out a quitclaim required by the Moravits sucessors. Lawsuits took place.

The tort claims

The Moravits followers won on their trespass to attempt title, to peaceful title, and declaratory judgment claims. (You heard it here first) They likewise made numerous tort claims– slander of title; carelessness, gross carelessness and irresponsible hiring, retention, or guidance; and tortious disturbance with residential or commercial property rights and existing and potential legal relationships. The high court gave summary judgment to JP Morgan and Whale on those claims and the Fort Worth Court of Appeals concurred. Here’s why:

Slander of title

Slander of title needs proof that:

( 1) the complainant has an interest in the residential or commercial property slandered,

( 2) the offender released an incorrect declaration about title to the residential or commercial property,

( 3) the declaration was released with legal malice, and

( 4) the publication triggered the loss of a particular sale.

Components 1 and 2 were developed, however the court concluded that component 3– legal malice– was not present. JP Morgan and Whale had an affordable belief that Red Crest Trust’s title was excellent. Although they understood that there may be “an issue with the title,” there was no proof that they acted intentionally without belief that JP Morgan had an affordable claim to title. Product 4 stopped working also. The Moravits followers likewise might not develop that they lost a particular sale.


The carelessness declares kipped down big part on whether JP Morgan and Whale owed any task to the complainants. Due to the fact that they had an affordable basis for their claim to title, they owed no task to the complainants to not cloud their title or to quitclaim their possible interests.

Tortious disturbance

Tortious disturbance with residential or commercial property rights needs disturbance with one’s residential or commercial property rights without simply cause or legal reason. JP Morgan and Whale had “simply trigger” since they had an affordable belief that JP Morgan’s title was excellent.

Disturbance with existing legal relationships needs a willful and deliberate act of disturbance with an existing agreement. Once again, since JP Morgan and Whale thought the Red Crest Trust had excellent title, they might not have willfully and deliberately disrupted an existing agreement.

Disturbance with potential legal relationships needs an individually tortious act to avoid a relationship from taking place. Due to the fact that the Morvits followers’ other tort claims stopped working, there was no individually tortious act.

With the uneven rejection of Colorado Proposal 112, oil and gas employees because state can return to work happy. Had it passed, there were other choices, one in the cosmos and one in Montana.

No Comments

Post A Comment