How to trespass

Reviewing the sometimes-confusing law surrounding Texas’s “trespass to try title” cause of action, Brumley v. McDuff reasoned: “In substance and effect, the Brumleys sued for title to the disputed property. In describing their claim as an ‘action to quiet title,’ the Brumleys did not nullify the substance of their adverse possession allegations. A suit that seeks to resolve a title dispute is, in effect, an action in trespass to try title, whatever its form. Much as a party does not turn a trespass-to-try-title dispute into a declaratory-judgment action through artful pleading, a party does not forfeit its trespass-to-try title-action by inartfully naming it.” No. 19-0365 (Feb. 5, 2021) (footnotes omitted).

Title?

“According to the special warranty clause at issue here, Cochran assumed the risk for a failure or defect of title that resulted from an individual claiming the property by, through, and under Cochran, but not otherwise. So while we recognize that the covenant of seisin and a warranty of title are conceptually distinct obligations, at bottom the deed’s language expressly limits liability for a failure of title, regardless of whether that failure of title falls within the scope of the covenant of seisin. Thus, reading the deed as a whole, we hold that it contains a qualifying expression that limits the scope of Cochran’s liability for a failure of title—including in the form of a breach of the covenant of seisin.” Chicago Title v. Cochrane Investments, No. 18-0676 (June 19, 2020).