Earnest Taylor v. Vernice Hill
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
1Opinion of the Court
in the property. On appeal, Taylor1 argues that the trial court erred in finding that (1) the 31 heirs were the sole owners of the property and (2) the property could not be partitioned and (3) in ordering that the property be sold and the proceeds divided among the parties.2 We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Only Taylor and Hill testified at the hearing. Hill testified that she was one of Louis’s 13 children and that the named plaintiffs and defendants were all of Louis’s heirs. Hill testified that Louis conveyed the property to his children before he died, introducing a warranty deed…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- BMC Software Belgium, NV v. MarchandTexas Supreme Court · 2002
- Roberson v. RobinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1989
- Sixth RMA Partners, L.P. v. SibleyTexas Supreme Court · 2003
- Mondragon v. MondragonTexas Supreme Court · 1923
- At & T CORP. v. Rylander, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1999
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.