Opinion ID: 821124
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Request to Quiet Title

Text: As noted, Turner’s complaint sought to quiet title to the property in his favor. A suit to quiet title is an action in which the plaintiff seeks to remove from his title a cloud created by an allegedly invalid claim. Jones v. Cont’l Royalty Co., 115 F.2d 731, 731-32 (5th Cir. 1940); Thomson v. Locke, 1 S.W. 112, 115 (Tex. 1886) (explaining that quiet title suits “enable the holder of the feeblest equity to remove from his way to legal title any unlawful [hindrance] having the appearance of better right”). To quiet title in his favor, a plaintiff “must allege right, title, or ownership in himself or herself with sufficient certainty to enable the court to see he or she has a right of ownership that will warrant judicial interference.” Wright v. Matthews, 26 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000, pet. denied). Further, the plaintiff in a quiet title action must “recover on the strength of his own title” rather than on the weakness of the defendant’s. Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 191 F.2d 705, 716 (5th Cir. 1951); see also Fricks v. Hancock, 45 S.W.3d 322, 327 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). In dismissing his suit, the district court explained that Turner’s complaint was largely a series of conclusory assertions. Moreover, to the extent the complaint was not conclusory, it failed to state a plausible claim to the relief requested because it contained no assertions regarding the strength of Turner’s own title. Instead, in an apparent attempt to shift to the defendants the burden of demonstrating that foreclosure would be lawful, Turner’s complaint focused entirely on the alleged weaknesses of the defendants’ interest in the property. The court explained, in other words, that Turner’s complaint was based on the mistaken view that the lawsuit was brought by the defendants to recover on the note, rather than by Turner to quiet title. Because Turner failed to state a plausible claim based on the strength of his own title, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. 5 Case: 12-10277 Document: 00512152040 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/22/2013 No. 12-10277 On appeal, Turner does little more than baldly assert that the district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion. Indeed, as he did in the lower court, Turner neglects to advance any factual allegations whatsoever regarding the strength of his title to the property. To the contrary, he continues to rely on arguments and inapposite authority purportedly demonstrating the weaknesses of defendants’ interest. This dearth of factual allegations alone is fatal to Turner’s claim. We also observe, however, that the record contains documentation of the note’s transfer from AHK to U.S. Bank, and of the transfer of the deed of trust from MERS—acting as AHK’s beneficiary—to U.S. Bank. Aside from conclusory allegations, Turner has provided us with no reason to question the validity of those transfers. Simply put, Turner has failed to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, and we find none.