Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

64 Citing cases

  1. Nguyen v. Pham

    640 S.W.3d 266 (Tex. App. 2021)   Cited 9 times

    Nguyen cites cases out of the Dallas Court of Appeals in which the court explained that "a certificate of acknowledgment is prima facie evidence that the grantor appeared before the notary and executed the deed in question for the purposes and consideration therein expressed [and] ‘[c]lear and unmistakable proof that either the grantor did not appear before the notary or that the notary practiced some fraud or imposition upon the grantor is necessary to overcome the validity of a certificate of acknowledgment.’ " Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 334 S.W.3d 838, 843 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.) (quoting Bell v. Sharif–Munir–Davidson Dev. Corp. , 738 S.W.2d 326, 330 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, writ denied) ). In this case, there is significantly more evidence than just Pham's testimony indicating she did not sign the deed.

  2. Yarbrough v. Brooks

    No. 14-19-00748-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 2, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    The certificate of acknowledgment is prima facie evidence that Brooks appeared before the notary and executed the deed for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. E.g., Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 334 S.W.3d 838, 843 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.); Watson, 274 S.W.3d at 802. To overcome the presumptive validity of such an acknowledgement, Brooks needed to present "clear and unmistakable proof" that either he did not appear before the notary or that the notary practiced some fraud or imposition upon him.

  3. ALNA Props. II v. Cobb

    No. 05-22-00166-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 6, 2023)

    . City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 822, 827 (Tex. 2005); Henson v. Reddin, 358 S.W.3d 428, 434 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2012, no pet.); Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 334 S.W.3d 838, 842 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.). If there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the finding, the evidence is legally sufficient.

  4. Villarreal v. Villarreal

    No. 13-22-00045-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 9, 2023)

    Additionally, "[t]he law is settled that a [deed's] certificate of acknowledgment is prima facie evidence that the grantor appeared before the notary and executed the deed in question for the purposes and consideration therein expressed." Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 334 S.W.3d 838, 843 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.) (citing Bell v. Sharif- Munir-Davidson Dev. Corp., 738 S.W.2d 326, 330 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1987, writ denied)).

  5. Maayeh v. Curry

    No. 05-19-01466-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 12, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    A forged deed is void. Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 334 S.W.3d 838, 843 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.). "[A] certificate of acknowledgement is prima facie evidence that [the signatory] appeared before the notary and executed the deed in question for the purposes and consideration therein expressed."

  6. Sadeghian v. Jaco

    No. 05-18-00838-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 23, 2020)   Cited 6 times

    In deciding whether evidence is factually sufficient to support a jury finding, we consider all the evidence in a neutral light and will set aside the verdict only if the evidence supporting the jury finding is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam); Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 334 S.W.3d 838, 842 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.). In doing so, the court "is not a fact finder, and we will not pass upon the credibility of the witnesses or substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact, even if a different answer could be reached upon review of the evidence."

  7. U.S. Bank v. Chase

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-229-M-BQ (N.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2020)

    "A notarized certificate of acknowledgment, as exists here, is prima facie evidence that the purported signor 'appeared before a notary and executed the deed in question for the purposes and consideration therein expressed.'" Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Padron, No. 5:15-CV-200-DAE, 2019 WL 1602018, at *6 (W. D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2019) (quoting Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 334 S.W.3d 838, 843 (Tex. App—Dallas 2011, no pet.) (relying, in part, on defendant's notarized signature in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's claim seeking to enforce indemnity agreement). The undersigned therefore also recommends entry of the proposed Agreed Order as to Defendant Chase.

  8. U.S. Bank v. Thompson

    Civil Action H-17-2452 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 13, 2019)

    While she did remove her middle name, when her recommissioned license expired on October 29, 2007, it was re-recommissioned without her middle name. Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 334 S.W.3d 338, 843 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.) (quoting Bell v. Sharif-Munir-Davidson Dev. Corp., 738 S.W.2d 326, 330 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1987, writ denied)). Thompson's affidavit says that she did not sign either note and that there was a conspiracy between her ex-husband, his brother, and Keyes to forge Thompson's signature.

  9. Morales v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

    Civil Action No. SA-13-CV-410-XR (W.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2013)   Cited 3 times

    Facts alleged and sworn to by a notary are presumptively valid. See Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 334 S.W.3d 838, 843 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.) ("The law is settled that a certificate of acknowledgment is prima facie evidence that the grantor appeared before the notary and executed the deed in question for the purposes and consideration therein expressed."). Nevertheless, Plaintiffs assert that the Assignment "is a forgery and was filed in violation of the Texas Penal Code."

  10. Bain v. Winn

    No. 09-22-00390-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 12, 2024)

    For a factual-sufficiency challenge, we consider and weigh all the evidence in a neutral light and set aside the finding only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 334 S.W.3d 838, 842 (Tex. App.- Dallas 2011, no pet.). We may not substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder if the evidence falls "within [the] zone of reasonable disagreement."