Alaniz v. Aguirre
| Decision Date | 02 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-14-00896-CV,04-14-00896-CV |
| Parties | Hugo ALANIZ, Appellant v. Jose Maria AGUIRRE, Elias Aguirre Jr., Argelio Aguirre, Jose Guadalupe Aguirre, and Elsa A. Lara, Appellees |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas
Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
REVERSED AND REMANDED
In the underlying trespass to try title lawsuit, the trial court entered a judgment declaring the appellees owned title to certain real property based on adverse possession. On appeal, appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's finding that appellees adversely possessed the property described in the trial court's judgment. In addition, appellant challenges the trial court's assessment of court costs against him. We reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings in the interest of justice.
BACKGROUND
Because appellant raises challenges to the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, the following is a detailed summary of the evidence presented at trial.
The appellees are five of the eight children of Elias Aguirre, Sr. and Manuela Aguirre.1 Elias, Sr. and Manuela resided in a house on the property at issue since 1972 or 1973, where they raised their children. Elias, Sr. died in 2001, approximately six years after Manuela died.
In 2007, appellant Hugo Alaniz wanted to purchase the property where Elias, Sr. and Manuela had lived. Initially, he made a deal with appellee Jose Maria Aguirre to purchase the property, but was then informed that the heirs of A.V. Margo owned record title to the land.2 After Alaniz was told about the record title, Jose Maria and Merced Aguirre3 introduced Alaniz to Margo's son Federico.4 The evidence regarding the reason for this introduction is conflicting. In any event, Alaniz proceeded to purchase the property from Federico and his siblings for $10,000. Alaniz received a deed from Federico and his siblings and title insurance at the closing of the purchase.
In February of 2009, the appellees filed the underlying lawsuit claiming they owned the property by adverse possession under the ten-year limitations statute. In their petition, the appellees described the property as follows:
A tract of land containing 0.1530 of an acre (6,664 sq. ft.) out of Share 9-D, Porcion 85, ancient jurisdiction of Camargo, Mexico, now Starr County, Texas, A. De la Rosa Original Grantee, Abstract 148.
In June of 2009, the appellees filed a demand for abstract of title, demanding that Alaniz furnish an abstract in writing of his claim or title to the property. The property description in the demand for abstract of title is the same property description contained in the petition.
On August 8, 2013, the cause was called for a bench trial. The first witness to testify was Eulalio Aguilar, Jr., a registered land surveyor with twenty-three years of experience. The appellees' attorney asked Aguilar if a metes and bounds description she provided to Aguilar matched the general legal description of the property contained in the petition. Aguilar stated he was unsure because he only received "this" about five minutes ago. Aguilar stated he knew where the property in dispute was located, but he did not know if the two descriptions were of the same property, stating, "your guess is as good as mine as far as I'm concerned." The appellees' attorney then showed Aguilar a warranty deed and asked if the acreage and square footage in the deed were the same acreage and square footage described in the petition. Aguilar stated the acreage and square footage were the same, but he would be unable to state if the deed described the same property as the petition or where the property was located without surveying it on the ground. Although the property descriptions both referred to Porcion 85, Aguilar stated Porcion 85 is 8,000 feet wide and seventeen miles long. Aguilar was excused as a witness subject to recall.
Alaniz was then called as an adverse witness. Alaniz testified Merced Aguirre, one of Elias, Sr. and Manuela's children who is not an appellee, first offered to sell him the property in question ten years earlier. At that time, Merced mentioned taxes were owed on the property, but Alaniz did not have the money to buy the property. In 2007, Alaniz stated he agreed to purchase the property from the Aguirres for $45,000, and gave them a truck, with an agreed value of $5,000, as a down payment. The next day, Alaniz was told the Aguirres did not own title to the property. After Alaniz discovered that information, Jose Maria and Merced took Alaniz to introduce him to Federico, and Merced told Alaniz that Federico owned the property. Alaniz testified he came tothe United States in 1998 or 1999, and Elias, Sr. was living on the property at that time. Alaniz stated when he purchased the property in 2007, the house on the property was abandoned. Alaniz testified he purchased the property for $10,000 and received a title insurance policy from Clarke Title Company. Alaniz was not told the title insurance policy did not insure against parties in possession, but Alaniz did know the Aguirres claimed to own the property. After he was sued, Alaniz did not have any conversations with Federico or ask him to defend the title, but Alaniz testified Federico previously told him he was afraid the Aguirres would file a lawsuit. Alaniz further testified he also purchased a tract of land from Jesus Tamez adjacent to the property Alaniz purchased from Federico and his siblings.
After Aguilar and Alaniz testified, the trial was recessed for that day. On August 28, 2013, Alaniz filed a motion to substitute counsel, and trial did not resume until August 12, 2014. Before trial resumed, Alaniz filed a response to the appellees' demand for an abstract of title. In describing the real property in dispute, the response set forth the same property description contained in the appellees' petition.
When trial resumed, appellee Argelio Aguirre was the first witness to testify. Argelio stated his father Elias, Sr. purchased the property in question from Jesus Tamez. Two receipts were introduced into evidence of payments made by Elias, Sr. to Tamez. Both receipts were dated June 26, 1972. The receipts referenced the payments being made for "lots," but they did not contain a property description. Argelio testified Tamez pointed out the property to them. Argelio testified Elias, Sr. purchased the house located on the property from Cecilio Rodriguez with a loan from A.V. Margo for whom Elias, Sr. worked. Argelio believed Elias, Sr. paid "6,000-and-some" for the house, but stated he did not remember the exact amount. Argelio testified Elias, Sr. repaid Margo for all of the loan except the final payment of $2,600. Elias, Sr. did not pay the finalpayment because Margo never paid Elias, Sr. for transporting some melons. Argelio testified his father Elias, Sr. always claimed to own the property but never obtained a deed from Tamez.
On cross-examination, Alaniz's attorney showed Argelio a deed from Tamez to Margo dated effective June 29, 1972, conveying two tracts of land totaling 0.1509 acres of land. This deed was attached to Alaniz's abstract of title response as evidence that the property in question was conveyed to Margo. When Alaniz's attorney offered the deed into evidence, the appellees' attorney stated he was not stipulating that the deed described the property in dispute. Argelio could not explain the deed; however, Argelio denied that Elias, Sr. was on the property with Margo's permission.
Jose Maria's testimony mirrored the testimony of his brother Argelio regarding Elias, Sr.'s acquisition of the property. Jose Maria stated his father Elias, Sr. purchased the property in question from Tamez, and Margo loaned Elias, Sr. the money to purchase the house. Jose Maria identified two receipts that were introduced into evidence. The receipts documented payments from Elias, Sr. to Margo to repay the loan. Both receipts were for $2,600. One receipt is dated December 5, 1975, and the other receipt is dated November 1, 1976. Jose Maria testified Elias, Sr. made three payments of $2,600, but did not make a last payment of $2,600 because Margo never paid Elias, Sr. for transporting produce to McAllen. Jose Maria testified Margo gave Elias, Sr. permission to work fields in California to repay the loan. Elias, Sr. worked for Margo for approximately 40 years until 1980, when the Aguirres purchased field trucks and started a different business.
Jose Maria testified he offered to sell the property to Alaniz for $50,000, and stated Alaniz gave him a truck as a partial payment. Jose Maria stated Federico previously told him the Aguirres owed Federico $10,000 for taxes on the property. Jose Maria testified Federico said he would give the Aguirres title to the property if they paid the $10,000. Jose Maria believed he owed Federicofor the taxes because he had taken Elias, Sr. to the tax office several times to pay taxes, but Elias, Sr.'s name was never shown as owing any taxes. Jose Maria testified he introduced Alaniz to Federico so Alaniz could pay Federico the $10,000 the Aguirres owed for the taxes as partial payment of the purchase price. Jose Maria stated Alaniz would owe the Aguirres a balance of $35,000 after he paid the $10,000 to Federico. Jose Maria denied telling Alaniz that Federico owned the property.
Federico testified his father, A.V. Margo, acquired the property in question from Tamez, and his father gave Elias, Sr. permission to live on the property. Federico stated the Aguirres never claimed to own the property, and they brought Alaniz to his house to introduce him because Alaniz wanted to purchase the property. Federico stated the Aguirres told Alaniz...
To continue reading
Request your trial