Opinion
No. 05-02-01719-CV
Opinion Filed July 31, 2003.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. CC-99-13059-b
Reverse and Remand;
Before Justices JAMES, FRANCIS, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Bea Shaw appeals the trial court's take-nothing judgment on her lawsuit against Susan Shaw for her share of the proceeds due to Bea from the sale of real property on Alta Vista Circle. In six issues, Bea generally contends she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the undisputed evidence. We agree and reverse the trial court's judgment.
In 1985, Bea received a quitclaim deed from her son Randall and his wife Susan, granting Bea an undivided one-third interest in Randall and Susan's home on Alta Vista Circle. Bea placed the deed in a drawer, and it was never recorded. Bea testified that the property was deeded to her in exchange for money she gave Randall and Susan for the down payment on the house and for improvements. Randall and Susan divorced in October 1994. The divorce decree provided that Susan was to receive two-thirds of the net proceeds from the sale but before the house was sold, Randall and Susan remarried. The couple later sold the Alta Vista house and placed the net sale proceeds of $239,177.36 into a brokerage account. They used some of the proceeds to buy another house on Lindenshire. Randall and Susan later separated, and Randall gave Susan $94,820 from the brokerage account. Divorce proceedings were then instituted.
The issue of the deed given to Bea was first raised by Randall at a mediation held during the pendency of Susan and Randall's second divorce, but Bea's interest in the Alta Vista property was not addressed in the second divorce decree. The second divorce decree awarded Susan the $94,820 she had previously received from Randall from the brokerage account and proceeds from the sale of the couple's Lindenshire home. A few weeks after the second divorce decree was signed, Bea sued Susan for Susan's portion of Bea's share of the proceeds from the sale of the Alta Vista home. Susan filed a cross-claim against Randall for actual and exemplary damages and contribution/indemnification.
The matter was tried before the court without a jury. The trial court determined that Bea should take nothing on her claim and Susan should take nothing on her cross-claim against Randall.
Discussion
In six issues argued together, Bea generally complains she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the undisputed evidence with respect to the existence and delivery of the deed establishes she held a one-third interest in the Alta Vista home. We agree.
Title to transferred property will vest upon execution and delivery of a deed. Stephens County Museum, Inc. v. Swenson, 517 S.W.2d 257, 261 (Tex. 1974). An unrecorded instrument relating to real property is binding on the parties and their heirs, as well as a subsequent purchaser who has notice of the instrument. See Waggoner v. Morrow, 932 S.W.2d 627, 631 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ).
It is undisputed that Bea received from Randall and Susan a quitclaim deed granting her an undivided one-third interest in the Alta Vista property. Bea became vested in a one-third interest in the Alta Vista property at the time the executed deed was delivered to her. See Swenson, 517 S.W.2d at 261. In light of her vested interest, Bea was entitled to one-third of the proceeds upon the sale of the Alta Vista property. We reverse the trial court's judgment that Bea take nothing on her claim. Although the undisputed facts in the record establish as a matter of law that Bea was entitled to her one-third interest, we are unable to determine Susan's share of these proceeds from the record before us. Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court for calculation of Susan's share of Bea's one-third interest in the Alta Vista property. See Tex.R.App.P. 43.4(b).