Don’t Lose the Appeal Before it Starts: 14th Court Warns on Findings of Fact Waivers and Improper Declaratory Relief in Property Disputes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wise, 14-25-00215-CV, February 03, 2026.
On appeal from the 333rd District Court of Harris County.
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a take-nothing judgment against a claimant asserting title through adverse possession and the bona fide purchaser doctrine, holding that the appellant waived his right to findings of fact and conclusions of law by failing to file a notice of past-due findings. The court further modified the judgment to strike redundant declaratory relief, clarifying that such relief is improper when it merely duplicates issues resolved in a quiet title action.
Relevance to Family Law
For family law practitioners, this case serves as a critical reminder of the “implied findings” trap. In bench trials—the bread and butter of divorce and custody litigation—the failure to strictly adhere to the two-step process for requesting Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FOF/COL) is fatal. Without these findings, the appellate court presumes the trial court made all findings necessary to support its judgment, effectively insulating the ruling from a sufficiency challenge. Furthermore, the court’s rejection of declaratory relief in title disputes mirrors the common error of over-pleading the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) in property characterization disputes to end-run attorney’s fee restrictions.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The dispute centered on four lots in Harris County. Mitchell Carter claimed ownership via adverse possession and as a bona fide purchaser (BFP). Carter’s BFP claim was based on a 2018 transaction with Creg Thompson, who had previously owned the lots but was divested of title to two of them (Lots 23 and 24) through a 2011 constable’s sale to a third party, Nassar. Although Nassar did not record his deed until 2020, Thompson lacked any title to convey to Carter in 2018. Carter also alleged he had “occupied” the property by adding doors to an abandoned warehouse, using a generator for his flooring business, and mowing the grass. However, he had paid almost no property taxes and was aware that his “seller” (Thompson) was in prison at the time of the transaction. The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against Carter, quieted title in favor of Thompson and InTown Builders, and granted declaratory relief.
Issues Decided
- Whether a party waives the right to complain of a trial court’s failure to file Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by failing to file a “Notice of Past Due Findings.”
- Whether a trial court may grant declaratory relief under the UDJA when the relief sought is redundant of a suit to quiet title.
- Whether a claimant can establish BFP status or adverse possession when the purported seller lacked title and the claimant failed to satisfy the continuous, notorious, and hostile elements of possession.
Rules Applied
- Tex. R. Civ. P. 296 & 297: The mandatory two-step process for securing FOF/COL. A party must request findings within 20 days of judgment and, if the court fails to file them, must file a “Notice of Past Due Findings” within 30 days of the original request to preserve error.
- Bona Fide Purchaser Doctrine: To be a BFP, one must acquire property in good faith, for value, and without notice of any third-party claim or interest. However, one cannot generally receive better title than the grantor possessed.
- Adverse Possession (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.021): Requires an actual and visible appropriation of real property, commenced and continued under a claim of right that is inconsistent with and is hostile to the claim of another.
- UDJA Redundancy Rule: The Declaratory Judgments Act is “not available to settle disputes that already are pending before a court” when the issue is already being adjudicated through another cause of action, such as a suit to quiet title.
Application
The court first addressed the procedural waiver. Carter requested FOF/COL but failed to file the mandatory “Notice of Past Due Findings” required by Rule 297. Because of this omission, the court applied the “implied findings” doctrine, assuming the trial court found every fact necessary to support the judgment. This made Carter’s evidentiary challenges almost impossible to sustain.
On the merits, the court noted that Carter’s BFP claim failed because Thompson had been divested of title years before the purported sale to Carter. Regarding adverse possession, the court found the evidence insufficient to show the required hostility or continuousness, especially given Carter’s attempt to purchase the property from a former owner, which can be construed as an acknowledgment of another’s superior title. Finally, the court scrutinized the judgment’s grant of declaratory relief. Because the quiet title action already resolved the ownership dispute, the declaratory judgment was redundant. The court modified the judgment to strike the declaratory relief but affirmed the remainder.
Holding
The court held that Carter waived his challenge to the lack of FOF/COL by failing to comply with Rule 297. Consequently, under the implied findings doctrine, the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s take-nothing judgment on Carter’s adverse possession and BFP claims.
The court further held that the trial court erred in granting declaratory relief because the controversy was already fully addressed by the suit to quiet title. The judgment was modified to delete the declaratory relief and affirmed as modified.
Practical Application
In a high-stakes divorce involving complex separate property claims, the trial lawyer’s work is not done when the judge stops speaking. If the court rules against your client on a characterization issue, you must secure FOF/COL to have any hope of a successful appeal. If you miss the Rule 297 deadline for a “Notice of Past Due Findings,” you have likely committed malpractice by waiver. Additionally, when seeking to recover property for a marital estate from a third party, be wary of relying on the UDJA for attorney’s fees; if the core of the dispute is a title contest, the 14th Court will not hesitate to strike the declaratory portion of your judgment.
Checklists
Preserving Findings of Fact (Rule 296/297)
- Step 1: File a “Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” within 20 days of the signed judgment.
- Step 2: Calendar 20 days for the judge to respond.
- Step 3: If the judge remains silent, file a “Notice of Past Due Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” within 30 days of your original request.
- The Trap: If you miss Step 3, the appellate court will presume the trial court found every fact against you.
Avoiding UDJA Redundancy
- Determine if the relief sought is available through a Trespass to Try Title or Suit to Quiet Title.
- If the UDJA claim merely replicates the title issue, delete it to avoid a modification on appeal.
- Remember: The UDJA cannot be used solely as a “fee-shifting” vehicle for a dispute that is governed by more specific property statutes.
Citation
Carter v. Administrator of the Estate of James M. Shumberg, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling is a potent weapon for defending against “equitable” property claims by third parties or paramours. In “meretricious relationship” or “informal marriage” cases where one party claims an interest in real property based on long-term occupancy or “informal” purchase agreements, Carter reinforces that: (1) occupying a property and performing basic maintenance (mowing, adding locks) does not necessarily equal adverse possession; and (2) a party cannot claim BFP status if their grantor was already divested of title—even if that divestment wasn’t immediately recorded. Strategically, if your opposing counsel fails to file a Notice of Past Due Findings after a bench trial, you should focus your brief on the “implied findings” doctrine to effectively end the appeal.
~~bafdc0ac-fb22-4c03-90fa-941877c43193~~
Share this content:
