Affirm in part ; Reverse and Render in part; Opinion Filed January 21, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 13
- 01581
- CV ARMSTRONG DLO PROPER TIES, LLC , Appellant V. TODD A. FURNISS AND HEATHER E. FURNISS , Appellees On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 12
- 11883
- E



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Brown , and W hitehill 1 Opinion by Justice Lang Appellant Armstrong DLO Properties, LLC (“ ADLO ”) appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment that ADLO take nothing in favor of appellees Todd A. Furniss and Heather E. Furniss (“the Furnisses”) . The order also award ed the Furnisses $ 40,670 in attorney’s fees against ADLO . The controversy brought before us is r especting title to a portion of a continuous strip of real property situated between two homes located on Armstrong Parkway in the Town of Highland Park, Dallas County, Texas. In five issues on appeal, ADLO contends the trial court reversibly erred by (1) granting the Furnisses’ “ no - evidence and traditional motion ” for summary judgment, (2) acting “sua

1 The Honorable Kerry P. FitzGerald, Retired Justice, was a member of the panel at the time this case was submitted, but due to h is re tirement from this Court on December 31, 2014 , he did not participate in deciding this case. H e was replaced on the panel by Justice Bill Whitehill in accordance with the rules of appellate procedure

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 41.1

.– 2

– sponte” in “consider[ing ] evidence and grounds not presented to the [trial court]” and “making conclusions as to the veracity and credibility” of ADLO ’s summary judgment evidence, and (3) “granting [the Furnisses] attorney’s fees contrary to Texas jurisprudence.” We decide aga inst ADLO on its first through fourth issues. ADLO’s fifth issue is decided in its favor. We reverse the portion of the trial court’s order awarding the Furnisses attorney’s fees against ADLO and render judgment denying the Furnisses’ request for attorne y’s fees. In all other respects, t he trial court’s order is affirmed. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(a) 47.4. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The real property in questi on i s described by the parties as a portion of a continuous strip of real property situated between the home located at 42 36 Armstrong Parkway, whic h home is owned by the Furnisses, and the home located at 42 42 Armstrong Parkway. The continuous strip in its entirety is approximately sixteen feet wide and two

- hundred feet in length

. The back portion of the strip, running from the rear of the properties to a patio in the approximate center of the strip , i s referred to by the parties as the “dogleg .” The front portion of th e strip , from the patio forward to Armstrong Parkway, constitutes the real property in question and is referred to

as the “ front strip

. ” 2
A DLO filed this law suit in October 2012, asserting causes of action against the Furnisses for “Trespass to Try Title/Suit to Quiet Title” and “Declaratory Judgment Relief

. ” Specifically,
A DLO stated in its petition ( 1 ) the front strip 3 was conveyed to A DLO in 2012 by David Lee Obenchain (“Obenchain”), the sole owner of A DLO and a fo rmer owner of the home located at 4242 Armstrong ; (2) A DLO is the owner of the front strip; and (3) “[d]espite the foregoing, [ the

2 Because the parties’ arguments range broadly, we recount the procedural and evidentiary histories in great detail. 3 Additionally, ADLO’s petition included claims asserting ownership of the dogleg. However, the record shows ADLO non

- suited all req uests for relief pertaining to the dogleg on August 14, 2013, prior to the trial court’s order complained of

.– 3

– Furnisses ] have recently made verbal claims to the [ front strip ] .” A DLO requested the trial court
to declare A DLO the owner of the front strip , “order [the Furnisses] to cease to assert any claims” to th at propert y , and award A DLO attorney’s fees pursuant to the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. §§ 37.001

– 37.011 (West
2008 ). Additionally, A DLO ’s petition contended in part (1) Obenchain and his predecessor s in title “ have paid the ad valorem taxes assessed against the [front strip] for years and years”; (2) the Furnisses and their predecessors in title to 4236 Armstrong “ha ve never paid the ad valorem taxes assessed against the [front strip] ” ; (3) the front strip “has been under the open, undisputed, and unchallenged possession and control” of A DLO ’s predecessors in title “since at least 1949”; ( 4 ) the Furnisses’ claims of o wnership to the front strip are “apparently” based on a certain warranty deed purportedly executed in 1949 that was filed in 1971 (the “1949 warranty deed”) ; and ( 5 ) th e 1949 warranty deed “ was not filed of record until over twenty

- two (22) years after it was purportedly executed ,” “was not properly executed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas ” because it “was not executed in front of a notary public,” “ should not have been recorded in the deed records because of the improper acknowledgment , ” “was never acknowledged by [the Dallas Central Appraisal District] ,” and “was not known to have been filed until the recently completed sale of 4242 [Armstrong].” The Furnisses filed a general denial answer and asserted affirmative defenses and countercl aims. The Furnisses’ affirmative defenses included, in part, (1) A DLO ’s claims are barre d by the statute of limitations , (2) “[ A DLO ’s ] claim for declaratory relief is barred as the purported dispute is the determination of title to well

- defined parcel s of land for which a trespass to try title suit is the mandated cause of action, ” and (3) “[the Furnisses] hold full title to the subject property through adverse possession and by limitations .” In their counterclaims, t he Furnisses ’ sought (1) a declaratory judgment “validating” the 1949 warranty deed and declaring– 4

– that the Furnisses hold fee simple title to the front strip pursuant to that warranty deed and subsequent conveyance instruments and (2) fee simple title to the front strip pursuant t o certain sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code pertaining to adverse possession. See id. §§ 16.024

– .029. Further, the Furnisses request ed attorney’s fees pursuant to the declaratory j udgments a ct. See id. §§ 37.001

– 37.011.
O n June 13, 2013, t he Furnisses filed a “ first amended no - evidence and traditional motion for partial summary judgment ” (the “amended summary judgment motion”). 4 In that amended motion, t he Furnisses stated i n part (1) they are the owners of “ the single family residential tract commonly known as 4236 Armstrong Parkway

. . . . (the “Property”) ” ; (2) “[ t ] he width of th e lot is 121.1 feet by deed description” ; and (3) “[ t ] he disputed area at issue,” i.e. the front strip , is a portion of th e Proper ty and has been “an integral part of the Property without exception from 1949 to the present day.” Specifically, according to the Furnisses, (1) in 1929,
Ros a L. Goodwin, a widow, became the owner of a 115

- foot wide residential lot (the “ Original
Tract ” ) on which t he Furnisses’ homestead is now located ; (2) in 1945, Thomas H. Obenchain, Sr. and Scotta Goodwin Obenchain, i ndividually and as i ndependent e xecutors and trustees under the will of Ros a L. Goodwin, conveyed the 115

- foot wide Original Tract, less ten feet of width, to Schuyler B. Worthington and Virginia P. Worthington ; (3) four years later, Tho mas H. Obenchain, Sr. and Scotta Goodwin Obenchain, individually and as t rustees for T homas H. Obenchain, Jr. under the will of Rosa L. Goodwin, executed th e 1949 warranty deed described above , which conveyed to the Worthingtons the omitted ten feet of the Original Tract plus an additional 6.1 feet ; and (4) pursuant to the conveyance under the 1949 warranty deed , title to the entire 121.1

- foot wide Property , including the front strip, “ was indisputably consolidated in the

4 T he record shows the Furnisses filed an initial “no evidence and traditional motion for partial summary judgment” on February 27, 2013. In th at initial summary judgment motion, the Furnisses requested the same relief subsequently requested by them in their amended summary judgment motion, plus, in the alternative, relief based on statutes pertaining adverse possession. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R E M
. C ODE A NN
. §§ 16.024

– .029. A DLO filed a response to th e Furnisses’ initial summary judgment motion on April 14, 2013.– 5

– Worthingtons , [the Furnisses’] predecessors

- in

- interest.” In a section of their amended motion titled “Summary,” t he Furnisses a rgued (1) they “ rely on documents of record and their status as bona fide purchasers for value without notice of a competing claim to prove title to the Front Strip and need go no further to prevail against [A DLO ’s] claim ” and (2) “[A DLO ] has no evidence that it holds any right, title or interest in the Property bey ond legally immaterial anecdotes and time

- barred technical questions relating to a deed from over 60 years ago

. ” Further, in a section of their amended motion titled “Traditional Motion Arguments,” the Furnisses stated in part “[a]s shown above, [the Furn isses’] predecessors

- in

- interest form an unbroken chain of title that [A DLO ] has not produced evidence to dispute

. ” The relief requested by the Furnisses was summary judgment in their favor, “incorporating the following findings and orders”: (1) “validati ng” the 1949 warranty deed; (2) “ declaring that [the Furnisses] hold fee simple title to the Property, which specifically includes the Front Strip, pursuant to the 1949 Warranty Deed and the conveyance instruments forming the subsequent chain of conveyance s ”; and (3) awarding the Furnisses “ attorney ’ s fees and costs of suit ” pursuant to § 37.009 of the declaratory judgments act

. Evidence attached to the Furnisses’ amended motion for summary judgment included, in part, (1) certified copies of the 1929 warranty deed conveying the Original Tract to Ros a L. Goodwin , the 1945 warranty deed conveying a portion of the Original Tract to the Worthingtons , the 1949 warranty deed described above , and additional warranty deeds “forming the subsequent chain o f conveyances” described by the Furnisses ; (2) affidavit s of Jon D’Azzo, a trustee of the
trust from wh ich the Furnisses purchased 4236 Armstrong, and Timothy Ray Carlson, the “groundskeeper for 4236 Armstrong,” pertaining to landscaping and maintenance of the front strip; (3) affidavits of the Furnisses stating in part that “[n]o adverse claim was apparent” when– 6

– they acquired 4236 Armstrong; and ( 4 ) an affidavit of attorney John J. Cope respecting attorney’s fees.
A DLO filed a July 10, 2013 first amended petition in which it add ed several parties and additional claims for “tortious interference” and “tax reimbursement.” Additionally, A DLO filed

a July 12, 2013 response to the Furnisses’ amended motion for partial summary judgment. In that response, A DLO asserted (1) the Furnisses are not bona fide purchasers of the front strip because of “their prior, actual, and constructive knowledge of the existing claims to [the front strip]” ; (2) the 1949 warranty deed “does purport to convey the . . . Front Strip to 4236 Armstrong,” but “literally reeks with the smell of fraud at its creation and untimely filing” ; and ( 3 ) “at best the [1949 warranty deed] raises an adverse possession claim for [the Furnisses], which fails as a matter of law.” Specifically, A DLO argu ed in part the 1949 warranty deed is

“ not enforceable ” because (1) “[s]uch deed was not signed in front o f the referenced notary public ”; (2) “[s] uch deed was notarized at least three days after the deed was purportedly signed ”; (3) “[t] he signature of Scott [sic] Goodwin Obenchain on such deed is assuredly a forgery ”; (4) “[n] o evidence exists that the signature of Thomas H. Obenchain, Sr. is authentic ”; (5) “[s] uch deed to the Worthingtons is dated four years after the 1945 conveyance o f the Worthington Lot at 4236 Armstrong ”; (6) “[s] uch deed was recorded almost twenty

- two (22) years after its purported execution ”; (7) “[t]he [Dallas Central Appraisal District] nev er made reference to such deed until 2013 ”; (8) “[Obenchain’s] father nev er saw the deed or was even aware of its possible existence ”; (9) “[Obenchain] never saw the deed or was even aware of its possible existence until the 2012 during [sic] his 2012 Sale of 4242 Armstrong ”; and (10) “[Obenchain] promptly challenged the [1949 warranty deed] (by the filing of this Suit) after such deed saw the light of day in 2012 .” Additionally, A DLO contended (1) “[a]lthough the [1949 warranty deed] has been of record for many years, its lack of recognition and [the Furnisses’]– 7

– own request fo r validation of said Deed has ‘opened the door’ to challenges” and (2) “historical, public records of [the front strip] being included in the 4242 Armstrong tax parcel since 1945 . . . is direct evidence that title to [the front strip] might not have been a legal part of 4236 Armstrong” and “create constructive notice to [the Furnisses] that something was wrong.” As to attorney’s fees, A DLO asserted (1) “[w]ithout a more detailed breakdown of what counsel for the [Furnisses] actually did, or did not do, fo r [the Furnisses], the amount of attorney’s fees requested by [the Furnisses] is not a reasonable and necessary amount” and (2) such requested fees improperly include more than $12,000 for the February 27, 2013 summary judgment motion filed by the Furnisse s that was “so false” that the Furnisses “pulled” it from consideration by the trial court. Evidence attached to A DLO ’s response included , in part, (1) an affidavit of Obenchain ; (2) business records of a real estate title company and the Dallas Central A ppraisal District pertaining to payment of property taxes respecting 4236 Armstrong ; (3) copies of the 1949 warranty deed and the other warranty deeds described above in the Furnisses’ purported “subsequent chain of conveyances”; and ( 4 ) an affidavit of attorney Terry P. Gorman, counsel for A DLO

. Obenchain stated in part in his affidavit (1) he is the great

- grandson of Rosa L. Goodwin and the grandson of Thomas H. Obenchain, Sr. and Scotta Goodwin Obenchain ; (2) from 1929 to 2012, the “home and land loc ated at 4242 Armstrong Parkway” was owned, successively, by his great

- grandmother, his grandparents, his father, and him; (3) from 1929 to 1945, his great

gramdmother, Rosa L. Goodwin, “owned the home and land next door, located at 4236 Armstrong Parkway”; ( 4 ) his father , Thomas H. Obenchain, Jr., “was steadfast as to [the front strip] always being a part of 4242 Armstrong”; ( 5 ) in the early 1990s, Obenchain became acquainted with Bertha B. Ahlschlager, who owned the home at 4236 Armstrong at that tim e ; ( 6 ) during the time Ahlschlager owned the home at 4236 Armstrong, she asked Obenchain if she– 8

– could landscape the area now in dispute, i.e. the front strip, consistent with the front of her home; ( 7 ) Obenchain gave Ahlschlager consent to do so, but told her th at “similar landscaping did not mean ownership”; ( 8 ) in 2012, Obenchain “ sold 4242 Armstrong” 5 ; ( 9 ) prior to selling 4242 Armstrong in 2012, Obenchain “separated from the lot” certain real property, which included the front strip, and later conveyed the front strip to A DLO ; and ( 10 ) the first time Obenchain “ever became aware of the existence of the [1949 warranty deed]” was in 2012 during “ the title wo rk” for his sale of 4242 Armstrong

. 6 Gorman stated in part in his affidavit that before the 2012 purchase of 4236 Armstrong by the Furnisses, (1) he “ contacted one of the real estate agents for [the Furnisses] , and asked her to inquire of [the Furnisses ] whether they were interested in purchasing any of the land now being referred to as [ the front strip] ” and (2) “ such agent (of [the Furnisses]) subsequently informed me that she had spoken with [the Furnisses] , and they were not interested in any such
pu rchase. ” Additionally, Gorman stated in part that he had reviewed the Furnisses’ request for attorney’s fees and , for the same reasons asserted in A DLO ’s summary judgment response described above, “ can only opine that the amount requested is not a reasona ble and necessary
amount. ” The Furnisses filed a July 11, 2013 motion to strike A DLO ’s first amended petition and a July 12, 201 3 motion to strike A DLO ’s response to the amended summary judgment motion

. With respect to A DLO ’s summary judgment response, t he Furnisses asserted in part (1) their amended motion for summary judgment “was called to trial for the court’s July 12, 2013 submission docket”; (2) “[a]ll responses . . . were due on or before July 5, 2013”; and (3)

5 Obenchain’s affidavit does not identify the 2012 purchaser of 4242 Armstrong. 6 Additionally, Obenchain testified in his affidavit that certain facts asserted in his response are “true and correct recitations of the facts,” including his assertion described above that the signature of Scotta Goodwin Obenchain on the 1949 warranty deed “is assuredl y a forger y.”– 9

– A DLO ’s response was “filed with the c ourt without leave of court on the trial date, July 12, 2013, creating inherent prejudice by precluding consideration or reply by Movants.” The trial court signed a July 18, 2013 o rder in which it granted , in part, the Furnisses’ amended motion for par tial summary judgment. Specifically, the trial court (1) “validate [d] ” the 1949 warranty deed, (2) declare d that the Furnisses hold fee simple title to the front strip pursuant to the 1949 warranty deed and subsequent conveyance instruments, and (3) state d “summary judgment for attorney’s fees is denied .” On July 24, 2013, the trial court held a hearing on the Furnisses’ motion to strike
A DLO ’s first amended petition. During that hearing, A DLO ’s counsel, Gorman , stated to the trial court that he was n ot aware of the July 18, 2013 order described above granting, in part, the Furnisses’ amended motion for summary judgment

. Gorman stated, “Your Honor, did that have any reason to do with the alleged allegation that the response was late?” The trial court stated, “No, sir.

. . . I did consider the response, although I don’t see any particular excuse for it being late.” Subsequently during the hearing, the trial court stated to Gorman in part , I also looked at your First Amended Petition which sent me in the direction of wondering what previous litigation there had been around this property. And although I confess I have absolutely no independent recollection of it, I found that there was a 2008 lawsuit filed by Mr. Obenchain against the Estate of his fat her seeking reformation of the deed to this property which was granted, and which establishes the legal description to be the northwest 75 feet of lot 18 and the southeast 65 feet of lot 19

— which, if my math hasn ’ t failed me totally, is 140

- foot frontage, not 155 or 150 or whatever it is that you are claiming in this lawsuit. And I think I ’ m entitled to take notice of that prior judgment, and I think it probably works some form of estoppel in this case.

. . . .

. . . Your client is obviously a very litigi ous type. Good for you. Good for him. I don ’ t know what, if anything, needs to be done about that back strip, but the record title for the front strip is very clear. That ’ s what I have granted summary judgment on.– 10

– . . . And as I say, I am striking your First Amended Petition . . . Further, later during the hearing, the following exchange occurred : MR. GORMAN: Your Honor, do I need to ask for a different court?
THE COURT: No, sir.
MR. GORMAN: It is clear that you have made impressions about myself, although we have never met prior to today.
THE COURT: I formed impressions only from the pleadings that you have filed, sir.
MR. GORMAN: I understand. But as we sit here today, having not met you, it is clear that you have formed impressions of me and my client although we have not been before you. And I ’ m wondering if I need to file a motion to recuse.
THE COURT: Well, that ’ s not for me to say, Mr. Gorman. If you file it, I will refer it to the presiding judge, and it will be dealt with appropriately. Following the hearing, t he parties agreed in writing to submit brief ing and affidavits on the issue of attorney’s fees in lieu of a bench trial on that issue

. The amount of “reasonable and necessary” attorney’s fees requested by the Furnis ses in t heir initial brief in the trial court on that issue was $40,670 , plus additional amounts in the event of successful defense of appeals. Further, in their reply brief on attorney’s fees , 7 the Furnisses asserted in part, [A DLO ] argues that the cru x of the lawsuit was a title claim, when the only basis for title was to invalidate a deed.

. . . In light of the 2007 amendment to § 37.004 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code that expressly authorizes declaratory judgment actions in resolution of boundary disputes, expressly notwithstanding Texas Prope r ty Code § 22.011,

. . . a declaratory judgment concerning the validity of the deed in resolution of a boundary dispute warrants an award of attorneys ’ fees.

7 The record on appeal does not contain a response by ADLO to the Furnisses’ initial brief respecting attorney’s fees. In thei r brief in this Court, the Furnisses state , “The clerk’s record does not reflect [ADLO’s] Response to [the Furnisses’] Reque st for Attorney’s Fees that was served on counsel for the Furnisses by facsimile on September 20, 2013 at 21:07:42 and to which the Furnisses responded. . . . The trial court clerk informed Appellees’ counsel that no filing was apparent in the trial court’ s file.”– 11

– A ttach ments to the Furnisses’ briefs respecting attorney’s fees filed in the trial court included, in part, a ffidavits of attorneys J. Sean Lemoine and John J. Cope and redacted itemized billing
statements

. In a “sur

- reply” to the Furnisses reply brief filed in the trial court , A DLO conte nded in part “[ t he Furnisses] are attempting to construe this Suit as a boundary dispute and/or solely as an action to construe a deed, both of which are eligible for attorneys ’ fees under the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgment s Act .” However, A DLO also argued, “f ees under the [declaratory judgment s act] are not available unless the boundary issue addresses only the location of a line and not any ownership issues as to the boundary. ” Further, a ccording to
A DLO , (1) “[i] n the Suit before the Court, the l ocation of the Front Strip was never the issue, but ownership of the Front Strip was ” ; ( 2 ) “the S uit at hand is in no manner a boundary dispute,” but rather is “ entirely about possession”; (3) the trial court’s declaration as to the 1949 warranty deed
“was merely incidental to the title issues asserted by [ADLO]” and “[a]s such, the ‘deed declaration’ of the [trial court] does not allow the award of attorney’s fees to [the Furnisses]” ; and ( 4 ) “[i] n addition to the fact that no term or condition of [ the 194 9 warranty d eed ] was being construed by [the trial court] in trying to determine the title of the Front Strip, ownership of the Front Strip as asserted by [A DLO ] included issues of adverse possession and the purported bona fide purchaser status of [the Fur nisses]

. ” Therefore, A DLO asserted, “Texas jurisprudence does not allow [the Furnisses] a recovery of attorney’s fees.” Fi nally, A DLO stated in part in its sur

reply “[the Furnisses] themselves asserted that [ADLO] had incorrectly tried to characterize these proceedings as a matter under the [declaratory judgments act] when the correct remedy was a trespass

- to

- try

- title action

. ”
In an “objection and conditional response” to A DLO ’s sur

- reply , t he Furnisses asserted in part that the sur

- reply constituted “ a clear violation of the parties ’ Rule 11 agreement ” and the– 12

– trial court should “ refuse to consider the s ur - reply for any purpose .” Further, the Furnisses contended section 37.004(c) is applicable in this case. The record is silent as to the dispositio n of the Furnisses’ objection to ADLO’s sur

- reply.
I n a final order dated October 16, 2013 , the trial court restated the portions of its July 18, 2013 order described above grant ing the Furnisses ’ amended motion for partial summary judgment and awarded the Furnisses attorney’s fees in the amount of $40,670, plus additional attorney’s fees in the event of successful defense on appeal. This appeal timely followed.
II. A DLO ’S ISSUES A. Standard of Review We review a trial court ’ s decision to grant summ ary judgment de novo. See, e.g., Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim , 315 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. 2010) ; Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish , 286 S.W.3d 306, 310 (Tex . 2009). When a party files a combined no

- evidence and traditional motion for summary judgment, we generally consider the no

- evidence motion first. Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway , 135 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004).
A no

- evidence motion for summary judgment asserts there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim upon which the opposing part y would have the burden of proof at trial. See Espalin v. Children ’ s Med. Ctr. of Dallas , 27 S.W.3d 675, 682 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2000, no pet.); T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a(i). In reviewing a no - evidence summary

- judgment motion,

we consider whether the nonmovant p roduced more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a fact issue on the challenged elements. Gen. Mills Rests., Inc. v. Tex. Wings, Inc. , 12 S.W.3d 827, 833 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2000, no pet.). More than a scintilla of evidence exists if the evidenc e rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair

- minded jurors to differ in their conclusions. Hamilton v. Wilson , 249 S.W.3d 425, 426 (Tex. 2008) ; Smith v. Deneve , 285 S.W.3d 904, 909 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2009, no pet.).– 13

– The movant for traditional su mmary judgment has the burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact and it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a(c); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co ., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex. 1985)

. A matter is conclusively established if ordinary minds could not differ as to the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. See, e.g., Max Duncan Family Inv., Ltd. v. NTFN, Inc. , 267 S.W.3d 447, 451 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, pet. denied) (citing Triton Oi l & Gas Corp. v. Marine Contractors & Supply, Inc. , 644 S.W.2d 443, 446 (Tex. 1982)). Once the movant establishes its right to summary judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact, thereby precluding summary judgment. Espalin , 27 S.W.3d at 682. In both instances, we credit evidence favorable to the nonmovant if reasonable jurors could and disregard evidence contrary to the nonmovant unless reasonable jurors could not.
Mann Fr ankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding , 289 S.W.3d 844, 848 (Tex. 2009). Where the trial court’s order does not specify the grounds for its summary judgment, w e must affirm the summary judgment if any of the theories presented to the trial court and preserved for appellate review are meritorious. See Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott , 128 S.W.3d 211, 21 6 (Tex. 2003). We review a trial court ’ s decision to award attorney ’ s fees under the declaratory judgments act for an abuse of discretion. City of Carrollton v. RIHR Inc. , 308 S.W.3d 444, 454 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2010, pet. denied). “The trial court abuses its discretion if its ruling that the attorney’s fees were recoverable was arbitrary or unreasonable.” Id . (c oncluding trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees where declaratory judgments act was improperly used); see Elijah Ragira/VIP Lodging Grp., Inc. v. VIP Lodging Grp., Inc. , 301 S.W.3d 747, 757

– 58 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2009, pet. denied) ( concluding trial court abused its– 14

– discretion by awarding attorney’s fees under declaratory judgments act because claim was one to quiet title and declaratory action could not “supplant the action to quiet title”); see also Bocquet v. Herring , 972 S.W.2d 19 , 21 (Tex. 1998) (“[i]t is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to rule arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without regard to guiding legal principles”); Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc. , 701 S.W.2d 238, 242

– 43 (Tex. 1985) (“The test for abuse of discret ion . . . is a question of whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Another way of stating the test is whether the act was arbitrary or unreasonable.” (citation omitted)). B. Applicable Law Under rule 166a(i) o f the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a]fter adequate time for discovery, a party without presenting summary judgment evidence may move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense o n which an adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial.” T EX
. R. C IV
. P

. 166a(i). “The motion must state the elements as to which there is no evidence.” Id

. The comment to rule 166a(i) states that the motion “must be specific in challenging t he evidentiary support for an element of a claim or defense,” and the rule “does not authorize conclusory motions or general no

- evidence challenges to an opponent ’ s case.” Id . 1997 cmt. “[ A ] nonspecific and conclusory motion for no

- evidence summary judgment is

. . . insufficient as a matter of law and does not require an objection [ to preserve error for appeal ]

. ” Jose Fuentes Co., Inc. v. Alfaro , 418 S.W.3d 280, 288 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2013, p et. filed). Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c), except on leave of court, the adverse party in a summary judgment proceeding may file and serve opposing affidavits or other written response “not later than seven days prior to the day of hearing. ” T EX
. R. C IV
. P

. 166a(c). When nothing in the record indicates the trial court granted leave to file a late summary judgment– 15

– response, we presume the trial court did not consider the response. WTFO, Inc. v. Braithwaite , 899 S.W.2d 709, 721 (T ex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no writ) (citing INA of Tex. v. Bryant , 686 S.W.2d 614, 615 (Tex. 1985) )

. The Texas Property Code provides in part , “A trespass to try title action is the method for determining title to lands, tenements, or other real property.” T EX
. P ROP
. C ODE A NN
. § 22.001(a) (West 2014 )

. “ To prevail in a trespass

- to

- try

- title action, a plaintiff must usually (1) prove a regular chain of conveyances from the sovereign, (2) establish superior title out of a common source, (3) prove title by li mitations, or (4) prove title by prior possession coupled with proof that possession was not abandoned. ” Wilhoite v. Sims , 401 S.W.3d 752, 760 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2013, no pet. )

. A declaratory judgment is a remedial measure that determines the rights of the parties and affords relief from uncertainty with respect to rights, status, and legal relations. See Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. Axis Tech., LLC , 444 S.W.3d 251, 262 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2014, no pet.) (citing Ysasaga v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co ., 279 S.W.3d 858, 863 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2009, pet. denied) )

. T he Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act is contained in chapter 37 of the Texas Practice and Remedies Code. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. §§ 37.001

– 37.011. Under section 37.004(a) of the declaratory judgments act, “ [a] person interested under a deed

. . . may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument . . . and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder.” Id

. § 37.004(a). Further , the act provides in part, “ [n]otwithstanding Section 22.001, Property Code, a person described by Subsection (a) may obtain a determination under this chapter when the sole issue concerning title to real property is the determination of the proper boundary line between adjoining properties.” Id

. § 37.004(c). Additionally, section 37.009 of the act states,– 16

– “In any proceeding under this chapter, the court may award costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees as are equitable and just.” Id

. § 37.009. Section 16.033 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides in part, A person with a right of action for the recovery of real property or an interest in real property conv eyed by an instrument with one of the following defects must bring suit not later than two years after the day the instrument was filed for record with the county clerk of the county where the real property is located:

. . . . (6) acknowledgment of the instrument in an individual, rather than a representative or official, capacity; (7) execution of the instrument by a trustee without record of the authority of the trustee or proof of the facts recited in the instrument; (8) failure of the record or ins trument to show an acknowledgment or jurat that complies with applicable law; or (9) wording of the stated consideration that may or might create an implied lien in favor of the grantor. Id

. § 16.033 (a) (West 2002). S ection 16.003 does not apply to a f orged instrument. Id

. § 16.033(b)

. A bona fide purchaser is “[a] person who acquires property in good faith, for value, and without notice of any third

- party claim or interest.” Fletcher v. Minton , 217 S.W.3d 755, 758 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2007, no pet.); see also T EX
. P ROP
. C ODE A NN
. § 13.001 (West 2014). Status as a b ona fide purchaser is an affirmative defense to a title dispute. Madison v. Gordon , 39 S.W.3d 604, 606 (Tex. 2001). However, t he protection usually afforded to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice does not apply when such purchaser ’ s claim is dependent upon a forged instrument. Bellaire Kirkpatrick Joint Venture v. Loots , 826 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1992, writ denied).– 17

– C. Application of Law to Facts
1 . “Sua Sponte” Actions of Trial Court We begin with A DLO ’s second and third issues, in which A DLO contends the trial court committed reversible error (1) “ when it acted sua sponte and considered evidence and grounds not presented to the [trial court]” and (2) “ w hen acted sua sponte as the trier of fact in making conclusions as to the veracity and credibility of [ A DLO ’s ] s ummary j udgment e vidence. ” We consider these two issues together. According to A DLO , [D]uring the July 24, 2013 Ruling, the [trial court] stated that it was granting [the Furnisses’ amended] MSJs, in part, because the [trial court]: (a) Had conducted a database search of the Dallas County public records and determined that [Obenchain] was litigiou s; (b) Had found a prior, 2009 Final Judgment (issued by the same Court and the same jurist) as to certain real property previously owned by [Obenchain] ; (c) Concluded that the 2009 Final Judgment established that [Obenchain] , and therefore subsequently [A DLO ], never held title to the Front Strip; and (d) Concluded that [A DLO ] could never produce any evidence in support of [A DLO ’s] Claims, or any evidence to counter [the Furnisses’] Claims, including the claimed status as a bona fide purchaser. A DLO argues (1) “[p]aramount in Texas summary jurisprudence is the tenet that the court shall only consider evidence and grounds contained within the applicable motions and responses”; (2) the judgment in the 2008 lawsuit described above [the “2009 Final Judgment”] “w as not part of the evidence before the Court and was not reviewed based on any ‘grounds’ raised in support of [the Furnisses’ amended] MSJs” ; and ( 3 ) although a trial court can “take judicial notice of its own records” in certain circumstances, the requirements pertaining to judicial notice were not met in this case. Further, A DLO contends in part ,– 18

– Not only was it improper for the [trial court] to make its own determination as to the veracity and credibility of [A DLO ’s] MSJ Evidence, the [trial court’s] determinations were wrong. . . . [T] here was nothing about the issuance of the 2009 Final Judgment that was adversarial or litigious. Yet without ever even meeting, or seeing, [Obenchain] , the [trial court] made conclusions as to [Obenchain’s] ve racity, credibility, and character. Further

. . . , the conclusion reached by the [trial court] regarding the applicable legal description set forth in the 2009 Final Judgment was wholly incorrect. By wholly determining the veracity and credibility of [A D LO ’s] MSJ Evidence, the [trial court] denied [A DLO ] its due process rights of cross examination, as well as the right to have witnesses be judged by their testimony given in person, not just on paper. By unilaterally concluding, at a summary judgment lev el, that [A DLO ] “could not ever prove its case,” the [trial court] denied [A DLO ] its right to a jury. The Furnisses respond that “[t]he trial court did not base its judgment on evidence and grounds not properly before it, and did not base its judgment on conclusions as to the veracity and credibility of summary judgment evidence submitted by [A DLO ].” According to the Furnisses, (1) A DLO “has not shown that the trial court referenced the earlier [2008] case, much less relied upon it, when the court ruled o n the motion for summary judgment” ; (2) “ [t]he record disproves [A DLO ’s] allegation and confirms that the trial court based its ruling on summary judgment upon a determination that ‘the record title for the front strip is very clear,’ not on the matters di scussed at the hearing on the motion to strike the First Amended Petition” ; and (3) “[i]n any event, the [trial] court is entitled to take judicial notice of the prior case sua sponte.” The record shows the trial court signed a July 18, 2013 order in which it granted, in part, the Furnisses’ amended motion for summary judgment as described above. The hearing at which the trial court made the statements that A DLO contends support its complaints occurred six days later, on July 24, 2013. The statements of t he trial court at the July 24 hearing do not show when the trial court “found” the 2009 Final Judgment, nor do th ose statements demonstrate the trial court considered the 2009 Final Judgment in ruling on the amended summary judgment motion. Further, the t rial court stated in part “ the record title for the front strip is very clear. That ’ s what I– 19

– have granted summary judgment on. ” A DLO made no objection in the trial court respecting the 2009 Final Judgment and did not file a motion to recuse the trial judge . Even assuming without deciding that A DLO ’s complaints described above have been preserved for this Court’s review,

w e cannot agree with A DLO that the record shows the t rial court “ sua sponte considered evidence and grounds not presented to the [trial court]” in making its summary judgment ruling or made the complained of “conclusions as to the veracity and credibility” of A DLO ’s summary judgment evidence. On this record, w e decide against A DLO on its second and third issues.
2 . Summary Judgment Next, we address together A DLO ’s first and fourth issue s , in which A DLO asserts the trial court erred by granting the Furnisses’ amended no

- evidence and traditional motion for partial summary judgment. According to A DLO , the Furnisses’ amended no - evidence motion “fails as a matter of law” because (1) it does not “ identify which of [ A DLO ’s ] claims are being challenged on a no - evidence basis” and “ the elements thereof being challenged” and therefore fails to comply with rule 166a(i)’s requirement that a no

- evidence motion for summary judgment “must state the elements as to which there is no evidence” and (2) “[e]ven if [the Furnisses] had identified the causes of action, and the elements thereof, being challenged by their no

- evidence MSJ, [ ADLO ’s] MSJ evidence more than satisfies the ‘more than a scintilla of evidence’ applicable standard of proof.” Additionally, A DLO argues the trial court’s granting of traditional summary judgment was in error because “[A DLO ’s] MSJ Evidence raises numerous genuin e issues of material fact to be decided only by a trier of fact.” The Furnisses respond in part (1) “[ ADLO] has no summary judgment evidence in the record since [A DLO ’s] evidence was submitted late and without leave; (2) “[e]ven if [A DLO ’s]
response was not barred as a matter of law, substantive defects render [the affidavit testimony– 20

– submitted by A DLO ] inadmissible”; (3) “A DLO has less than a scintilla of evidence when [A DLO ’s] incompetent summary judgment e vidence is properly disregarded ” ; and (4) “A DL O submitted no evidence that it holds any right, title or interest in the Property and relied instead on late

- filed and legally immaterial anecdotes and a time

- barred technical challenge consisting of speculation relating to a deed from over 60 years ago.” Additionally, t he Furnisses assert four pages of objections to A DLO ’s summary judgment affidavits for the first time on appeal and argue that their July 12, 2013 motion to strike A DLO ’s response to the amended motion for summary judgment “should be const rued as an objection to all defective evidence sufficient to comprehensively preserve such issues for appeal.” Further, the Furnisses contend “[t]he hybrid motion clearly sets forth its traditional and no

- evidence grounds as required.”

a . A DLO ’s Summa ry Judgment Evidence
A DLO asserts in its appellate reply brief (1) counsel for A DLO was told by the trial court coordinator that under the trial court’s “local rules,” A DLO ’s summary judgment response was due July 12, 2013; (2) A DLO ’s response was filed on that date and thus was timely; (3) the trial court stated during the July 24, 2013 hearing that it “did consider the response” and “[s]uch public acceptance by the Trial Court serves as the Trial Court overruling [the Furnisses’] Motion to Strike [A DLO ’ s] MSJ Response”; and (4) while “substantive” objections to summary judgment evidence can be raised on appeal, none of the Furnisses’ objections to ADLO’ s summary judgment evidence are substantive and therefore none have been preserved for appellate review

. W e need not reach the parties’ arguments and objections described above respecting whether A DLO ’s summary judgment evidence should be disregarded in this Court’s analysis. As described below, even assuming without deciding that all of the evidence at tached to
A DLO ’s summary judgment response was properly considered by the trial court, we cannot– 21

– agree with A DLO that its evidence satisfie s its burden respecting the Furnisses’ amended motion for no

- evidence and traditional summary judgment. b

. No

- Evide nce Motion for Summary Judgment i. Sufficiency of No

- Evidence Motion
As to A DLO ’s challenge respecting the requirements of rule 166a(i), t he Furnisses respond that they “specifically urged [A DLO ’s] lack of evidence of title in [the] opening summary of the motion” and “later identified

. . . the lack of evidence rebutting the Furnisses’ chain of record title ” by stating in the motion (1) “[m]oreover, [A DLO ] has no evidence that it holds any right, title or interest in the Property beyond legally immaterial anecdotes and time

barred technical questions relating to a deed from over 60 years ago” and (2) “[a]s shown above, Movants’ predecessors

- in

- interest form an unbroken chain of title that [A DLO ] has not produced evidence to dispute.” This Court has st ated “ [a] no - evidence motion that only generally challenges the sufficiency of the non

- movant ’ s case and fails to state the specific elements that the movant contends lack supporting evidence is fundamentally defective and cannot support summary judgment a s a matter of law.” Jose Fuentes Co ., 418 S.W.3d at 2 86

– 87

. Accordingly , a motion that assert s , both before and after listing the elements of each claim, that “ appellants ha [ve] no evidence to support ‘ one or more ’ of the elements of the claim ” is legally insufficient. Id

. Further, a no - evidence motion that “restates the name of each cause of action [asserted by the

non - movant], but fails to challenge or even mention a single element of any of these claims as to which there is no evidence ” ca nnot support a trial court’s summary judgment. Coleman v. Prospere , No. 05

- 13

- 00068

- CV , 2014 WL 4672456, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Sept. 22, 2014, no pet.).– 22

– The record in the case before us shows the motion in question is titled “First Amended
No

- Evidence and Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.” T here is no section in the motion specifically pertaining to no - evidence arguments. However, the statements described above by the Furnisses are contained, respectively, in sections of the motion titled “Summary” and “Traditional Motion Arguments.” Those statements go beyond merely listing causes of action or elements or making a general assertion of no evidence as to “one or more” elements.
See Jose Fuentes Co ., 418 S.W.3d at 286

– 87; Coleman , 2014 WL 4672456, at *2. On this record, we conclude the Furnisses’ no

- evidence motion for summary judgment satisfies the requirements of rule 166a(i). See T EX
. R. C IV
. P

. 166a(i) ; Heirs of Garcia v. Parr , No. 04

- 12

- 00767

- CV, 2014 WL 3928602, at *5 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Aug. 13, 2014, pet. filed ) ( m em. op.) ( no - evidence motion for summary judgment in trespass to try title action met requirements of 166a(i) where movant stated in motion there is no evi dence nonmovant holds title to any portion of disputed property). ii. Sufficiency of A DLO ’s Evidence to Defeat No

- Evidence Motion In order to defeat the Furnisses’ no

- evidence motion for summary judgment, A DLO was required to “ present some competent evidence of [ its ] i nterest in the disputed property. ” Brownlee v. Sexton , 703 S.W.2d 797, 799

– 800 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) . In the “Argument and Authorities” section of its brief on appeal, A DLO asserts generally that its “MSJ Evidence” attached to its summary judgment response “more than satisfies the ‘more than a scintilla of evidence’ applicable standard of proof.” However, A DLO does not cite to the record or otherwise describe the evidence it contends met its no

- evide nce summary judgment burden. 8 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( i ). Moreover, as stated by ADLO in its brief in this Court,

8 In its appellate brief, ADLO includes an initial section, preceding its “Summary of the Argument” and “Argument and Authorit ies” sections, titled “Material Facts Controverting [the Furnisses’] Claims and Supporting [ADLO’ s ] Claims.” In that i nitial section, ADLO describes the entirety of the evidence attached to the amended summary judgment motion and ADLO’s response, asserts that evidence “supports the– 23

– A DLO does not dispute that the 1949 warranty deed “purports to convey to the above described Worthingtons a tract of land consisting only o f the Front Strip” and “ [i] ncluded in the legal description for the 2012 Conveyance to [the Furnisses] was the Front Strip. ” Rather, A DLO argues in its brief on appeal that the Furnisses’ reliance upon the 1949 warranty deed is “misplaced” for the same ten reasons ADLO asserted the 1949 warranty deed is “not enforceable” set out in its response to the Furnisses’ amended motion for summary judgment described above. However, A DLO ’s challenges respecting the 1949 warranty deed were not asserted within two years after the date th at deed was “filed for record.” See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. &
R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 16.033(a)

. 9 Further, while A DLO cites Obenchain’s affidavit in support of its allegations of forgery, the only statement attested to b y Obenchain respecting for gery was his assertion that “[t]he signature of Scott [sic] Goodwin Obenchain on such deed is assuredly a forgery.” That assertion does not constitute more than a scintilla of evidence of forgery

. See Ever Constr. Corp. v. Su , No. 05

- 13

- 00385

- CV, 2014 WL 3907996, at *5 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Aug. 12, 2014, no pet.) ( m em. op.) (evidence which “at best” established company owner was suspicious that signature on checks in question had been forged was merely scintilla of evidence )

. On this record, we conclude A DL O did not meet its burden to produce more than a scintilla of evidence in support of its claims respecting its ownership of the front strip. We decide against A DLO on its fourth issue.

c. Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment As to the Furnisses’ t raditional motion for summary judgment, A DLO assert s “[t ] he evidence before the [trial court] is certainly sufficient to raise numerous genuine issues of

following material facts as to the front strip,” and sets forth nine pages of purported “ma terial facts” with citations to the evidence. That section does not specifically describe which of the purported “material facts” pertain to ADLO’s complaints respecting the no

- evidence portion of the Furnisses’ amended motion for summary judgment. 9 A s described above, ADLO asserted in its summary judgment response in the trial court that “[a]lthough the [1949 warranty deed] has been of record for many years, its lack of recognition and [the Furnisses’] own request for validation of said Deed has ‘open ed the door’ to challenges

. ” ADLO cited no authority for that position in the trial court and does not address that position on appeal.– 24

– material fact as to the prior deeds related to the Front Strip, the prior acts of ownership as to the Front Strip, whether Todd and Heather had a lawful claim of adverse possession to the Front Strip, and whether Todd and Heather were bona fide purchasers as to the Front Strip. ” Specifically, A DLO contends the “MSJ Evidence” attached to its summary judgment response raise d the following fact issues: (1) “ Was the Front Strip ever lawfully conveyed to outside of the Obenchain chain of title? ”; (2) “ Was the [1949 warranty deed] valid? ”; (3) “ Even if the [1949 warranty deed] was valid, was said deed sufficient to perfect an adverse possession claim against the Obenchain chain of title as to the Front Strip? ”; (4) “ Did the predecessors in title to [the Furnisses] ever exercise any rights of ownership to the Front Strip? ”; and (5) “ Were [the Furnisses] actually bona fide purchasers, or did they have notice of the claims to the Front Strip? ” 10 The Furnisses respond in part that they provided summary judgment evidence proving their record title to the front strip and the absence of notice regarding A DLO ’s claims. To the extent A DLO contends fact issues respecting the Furnisses’ adverse possession claim precluded summary judgment, the record shows adverse possession was not a ground relied upon by the Furnisses in th eir amended summary judgment motion. Therefore, summary judgment could not have been granted by the trial court on that ground. See Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. , 73 S.W.3d 193, 204 (Tex. 2002); Plunkett v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co ., 285 S.W.3d 106, 122 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2009, pet. denied). Additionally , w e concluded above that the record contains no evidence supporting A DLO ’s claims to ownership of the front strip. Therefore, it is immaterial whether the summary judgment evidence supports the Furnisses’ affirmative defense of bona fide purchaser respecting ADLO’s claims and we do not address the arguments pertaining to that affirmative defense. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1

. The deeds contained

10 As in its argument described above pertaining to the no

- evidence portion of the amended motion for summary judgment, Armstrong does not cite to the record in the argument section of its appellate brief pertaining to traditional summary judgment.– 25

– in the record and described above show the front stri p was conveyed to the Worthingtons in the 1949 warranty deed and was subsequently conveyed to the Furnisses through a chain of title emanating from the Worthingtons. Other than asserting the same arguments addressed and rejected by this Court in the above analysis pertaining to the no

- evidence summary judgment,
A DLO does not explain how its summary judgment evidence raises a fact issue as to the validity of the 1949 warranty deed or as to whether the front strip was “conveyed to outside of the Obenchain ch ain of title” pursuant to that warranty deed. On this record, we conclude the trial court did not err by granting the Furnisses’ motion for traditional summary judgment. We decide against A DLO on its first issue. 3. Attorney’s Fees In its fifth issue, A DLO asserts the trial court “committed reversible error by granting [the Furnisses] attorney’s fees contrary to Texas jurisprudence.” According to ADLO, (1) “an award of attorney’s fees in a trespass to try title action matter (which is what the Suit is) is not permissible” and (2) “[e]ven if such an award was allowed under Texas law, the amount awarded to [the Furnisses] was excessive.” As to the first portion of ADLO’s argument, t he Furnisses respond that “even if ADLO had not itself sought re lief under the [declaratory judgments act], it would be clear that a declaratory judgment action is appropriate for this case” pursuant to sections 37.004(a) and 37.004(c) of the declaratory judgments act. ADLO bases its position on Mart in v. Amerman , 133 S.W.3d 262 (Tex. 2004). In
Martin , the Texas Supreme Court concluded property code section 22.001, the Texas trespass

- to

try

- title statute , govern ed the parties ’ substantive rights in a boundary dispute and the parties could not proceed under the Texas Declaratory Judgments Act to recover attorney ’ s fees. Id . at 267. S ubsequent to Martin , in 2007, the Texas L egislature amended the declaratory judgments– 26

– act to provide in part that, n otwithstanding s ection 22.001 of the property code, a person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings constituting a contract “may obtain a determination under this chapter when the sole issue concerning title to real property is the determination of the proper boundary line between adjoin ing properties.” See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 37.004(c)

. ADLO contends in part in its appellate brief Although subsequent changes to the [declaratory judgments act] allowed the [declaratory judgments act] to be utilized where the sole issue before the court was the location of a real estate boundary line, the Martin edict remains the law in the State of Te xas that a dispute as to title, i.e. ownership, of a piece of real property is a trespass to try title claim, exclusively, and does not allow the award of attorneys’ fees even if the dispute is also styled as a [declaratory judgments act] matter. The Fur nisses argue in part that “a declaratory judgment action is appropriate for this case” because the post

- Martin amendment to section 37.004 “authorizes declaratory judgment actions in resolution of boundary disputes” and “ expressly overrides ” property code section
22.001. Further, the Furnisses contend “[e]ach of the post

- amendment cases cited by ADLO is either patently inapplicable or directly supports the Furnisses’ position.” One of the “post

- amendment” cases cited to us by both parties in support of their arguments is Tex as Parks and Wildlife Dep artment v. Sawyer Trust , 354 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. 2011). Although th at case ultimately was resolved on the issue of sovereign immunity, we conclude it directs our decision as to whether section 37.004(c) app l ies in this case. Id

. In Sawyer Trust , a trust (the “Trust”) owned real property over which a fork of the Red River crossed. Id

. at 387. The T rust had an opportunity to sell sand and gravel from the streambed, but was concerned that the State of Texas, which owns the soil underlying navigable streams, would seek control of the property and interfere with the sale. Id . The T rust sued the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (the “Department”) , seeking , in part, a declaratory judgment that the fork was not navigable. Id . The Department filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which was– 27

– denied by the trial court. Id

. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, concluding in part that “ although the declaratory action ‘ may have the collateral consequence of resolving a factual dispute that impacts a claim being made by the State, it is not an action that is in essence one fo r the recovery of money from the State or for determination of title; therefore, legislative permission to prosecute is unnecessary. ’ ” Id

. In the supreme court , the Department argued in part that “ determination of whether a stream is navigable constitut es a determination of the State ’ s title to property and sovereign immunity bars a suit that would have such an effect .” Id

. The T rust responded in part that the trial court had jurisdiction because “the suit is . . . an authorized declaratory judgment action to determine a boundary line as opposed to a trespass to try title suit to determine ownership rights .” Id

. Specifically , t he T rust argue d “ the claims in this case constitute a boundary dispute ” and “ ‘ new section 37.004(c) can easily and logically be construed as a legislative waiver of any sovereign immunity that has ever in the past impeded private titleholders ’ efforts to litigate their boundary disputes against the State. ’ ” Id . at 389. The supreme court disagreed that the claims in question c onstitute d a boundary dispute and reversed the court of appeals’ decision

. Id

. at 387, 389. T he supreme court stated in part , In 2007, the Texas Legislature added an exception to the rule that a trespass to try title claim is the exclusive method for ad judicating disputed claims of title to real property. Section 37.004(c) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that, notwithstanding the trespass to try title statute, a person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writi ngs constituting a contract may obtain a determination of title based on a property boundary line “when the sole issue concerning title to real property is the determination of the proper boundary line between adjoining properties.”

. . . . We need not de cide whether section 37.004(c) effects a waiver of the State’s immunity from suit for boundary disputes because this controversy is not over the boundary between State

- owned land and Trust

- owned land; rather it is over whether the State owns any land at al l. The case involves rival claims to ownership of the entire streambed. Consequently, the Trust ’ s suit in substance is one to determine title to land

. Such a suit against the State is barred by sovereign immunity absent legislative consent.– 28

– Id . at 389

– 90 (citations omitted) (emphasis added)

. T he record shows t h e controversy in th e case before us is “ not over the boundary between ” land owned by ADLO and land owned by the Furnisses , but rather involves rival claims to ownership of the entire front strip

. S ee id . a t 390. On this record, we cannot agree with the Furnisses that section 37.004(c) is applicable in this case. 11 See id .; Coker v. Geisendorff , 370 S.W.3d 8, 12 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2012, no pet.) (concluding plaintiff’s claims against defendant constituted “ traditional claim of trespass to try title ” rather than boundary dispute

“ because [defendant’s] claimed property lies wholly inside the boundaries of the property claimed by the [plaintiffs]”) ; Lile v. Smith , 291 S.W.3d 75, 77

– 78 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (concluding section 37.004(c) was inapplicable because “ the issue was not one of the location of a boundary but was, instead, the determination of the title to a well

- defined parcel o f land”). Additionally, we disagree with the Furnisses ’ conten tion that attorney’s fees are recoverable because a declaratory judgment action is appropriate in this case pursuant to section 37.004(a). As described above, section 37.004(a) provides in part that “[a] person interested under a deed . . . may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument . . . and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder.”

11 The Fur nisses do not explain how the case before us is one in which “the sole issue concerning title to real property is the determination of the proper boundary line between adjoining properties.” See id

. ; T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 37.004(c)

. Further, i n addition to relying on Sawyer Trust , the Furnisses cite three other “post

- amendment cases cited by ADLO” that the Furnisses contend are “either patently inapplicable or directly support[]” their position. N one of those cases involve the appli cability of section 37.004(c) to facts similar to those before us. See Teon Mgmt., LLC v. Turquoise Bay Corp ., 357 S.W.3d 719, 723

– 727 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2011, pet. denied) (plaintiff who sought declaratory judgment that seven oil and gas leases had not terminated and that plaintiff was operator of four wells located on those leases should have proceeded with trespass to try title suit rather than declaratory judgment claim because case “involved rival claims to the mineral estate, and every substantive i ssue was resolved when the trial court determined who owned the mineral estate”); XTO Energy Inc. v. Nikolai , 357 S.W.3d 47, 62

– 63 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2011, pet denied) (where plaintiffs requested declaratory judgment declaring deed reserving mineral int erests to be valid and “recognized on appeal that their suit is based primarily on their claim for legal title,” essence of s uit was “to obtain a declaration of title” and plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney’s fees under declaratory judgments act); Po ag v. Flores , 317 S.W.3d 820, 828

– 829 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2010, pet. denied) (action requesting declaratory judgment that oil and gas lease is invalid and ordering it “remo ved from the title” of plaintiff’s property was a trespass to try title suit and attorney’s fees were not recoverable under declaratory judgments act).– 29

– T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 37.004(a). However, in Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Ap artments Corp. , 417 S.W.3d 909, 926 (Tex

. 2013) , the supreme court stated as follows: We have previously held that, when “the trespass

- to

- try

- title statute governs the parties ’ substantive claims . . . , [ the plaintiff] may not proceed alternatively under the Declaratory Judgments Act to recover their attorney ’ s fees.” Martin v. Amerman , 133 S.W.3d 262, 267 (Tex. 2004). In so holding, we noted that the Legislature has provided t he trespass

- to

- try

- title statute as “ the method of determining title to

. . . real property,” and the Legislature did not provide for attorney ’ s fees in such actions. Id . (citing TEX. PROP.CODE § 22.001(a)) (emphasis added).

. . . . It is undisputed that the present case requires determination of the parties ’ possessory rights to the property. We see no legitimate basis to distinguish this case from Martin , in which we affirmed and upheld the Legislature ’ s intent that chapter 22 of the Texas Property Code govern the resolution of disputes involving legal interests in real property. Id

. (emphasis original) ; see also Sani v. Powell , 153 S.W.3d 736, 745 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2005, pet. denied) ( stat ing “ [a] ny suit that involves a dispute over the title to land is, in effect, an action in trespass to try title, whatever its form” and at torney ’ s fees pursuant to the declaratory judgments act “ are not available in a suit to quiet title or to remove cloud on title ” ). Although both sides in the case before us couche d their claims in terms of request s for declaration s , everything request ed of the court is necessary to, and a component of, the ultimate relief sought , which is to clear title to the front strip. 12 See Sani , 153 S.W.3d at 746. Accordingly, w e conclude the Furnisses were not entitled to an award of attorney ’ s fees under the d eclaratory j udgments a ct and the trial court abused its discretion by award ing those fees. Id .; see Coinmach Corp ., 417 S.W.3d at 926; XTO Energy, Inc. , 357 S.W.3d at 62

– 63 ( concluding that although validity of deed was contested, essence of suit was t itle dispute and therefore award of attorney’s

12 Specific requirements for trespass to title actions are set forth in Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 783 through 809. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P

. 783

– 809. The parties do not address those rules on appeal and t he record does not show any objection in the trial court by either side respecting lack of compliance with those rules

. Cf. Buckingham v. McAfee , 393 S.W.3d 372, 375 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2012, pet. denied) ( party waives right to insis t upon compliance with requirements for trespass to try title action when it fails to object ); T eon Mgmt., LLC , 357 S.W.3d at 726 (same)

.– 30

– fees pursuant to declaratory judgments act was improper) ; see also RIH R Inc ., 308 S.W.3d at
454. We decide in AD LO ’s favor on its fifth issue. III. CONCLUSION We decide (1) against ADLO on its first, second, third, and fourth issues and (2) in favor of ADLO on its fifth issue. We reverse the portion of the trial court’s order awarding the Furnisses attorney’s fees against ADLO and render judgment denying the Furnisses’ request for attorney’s fees. In all other respects, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

131581F.P05

/ Dougl as S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE– 31

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
ARMSTRONG DLO PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellant
No. 05

- 13

- 01581

- CV V. TODD A. FURNISS AND HEATHER E. FURNISS, Appellees On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 12

- 11883

- E. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices Brown and Whitehill participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we REVERSE the portion of the trial co urt’s order awarding appellees Todd A. Furniss and Heather E. Furniss attorney’s fees against appellant Armstrong DLO Properties, LLC and RENDER judgment denying appellees’ request for attorney’s fees. In all other respects, the trial court’s order is AFF IRMED

. It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.
Judgment entered this 21st day of January, 2015.