CROSSOVER: Forged Transfer of Community Homestead Is Void; Family-Law Litigators Can Defeat Buyer ‘Agency’ Theories Without Spousal Joinder or Authority

Aliza Groups, Inc. v. Roshan K. Noorani, 02-25-00410-CV, April 30, 2026.

On appeal from Probate Court No. 1, Denton County, Texas

Synopsis

The Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that a deed transferring a community homestead was void as a matter of law where the named grantor did not sign it and the summary-judgment record established that the son who signed in the father’s name lacked authority to do so. For family-law litigators, the key takeaway is that “agency” rhetoric does not create a triable issue when the record contains direct evidence of no authority, particularly in litigation involving homestead rights, title claims, and post-death or post-separation disputes over community real property.

Relevance to Family Law

This is a title case with obvious family-law consequences. In divorce, partition, enforcement, probate-overlap, and SAPCR-adjacent property fights, litigators routinely encounter claims that an adult child, spouse, paramour, manager, or “family representative” had authority to sign transfer papers affecting marital real estate. Noorani is useful because it confirms two points Texas family lawyers can use immediately: first, a forged deed is void, not merely voidable; and second, conclusory agency theories will not save a transfer of a community homestead where the summary-judgment evidence affirmatively negates authority. In practical terms, this gives trial counsel a strong framework to defeat post hoc attempts to validate unauthorized transfers of homestead property during marriage, during incapacity, during separation, or after death.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Roshan and Karim Noorani were married for decades and acquired the Carrollton property during marriage. Although only Karim was named on the acquisition deed, the property was community property, and the opinion notes that it was used exclusively as the couple’s marital homestead from purchase until Karim’s death. Roshan then continued living there.

In 2017, a warranty deed purported to transfer the property to Aliza Groups, Inc. But Karim did not sign that deed. Instead, the couple’s son, Rahim, signed Karim’s name. Rahim later stated that he believed he was signing a lien document connected to a $200,000 business loan, not a deed conveying title. More importantly for the court’s analysis, Rahim swore that neither parent had discussed selling the property, neither parent had agreed to transfer it, and he had never been authorized by either Karim or Roshan to sign a deed or lien affecting the property.

After Karim’s death in 2020, the probate proceeding treated the property as a community asset. Roshan then sued Aliza Groups in a title action, asserting trespass-to-try-title and quiet-title claims. She moved for partial summary judgment, contending the deed was forged and therefore void. Aliza Groups did not meaningfully dispute that Karim had not personally signed the deed; instead, it tried to avoid summary judgment through equitable and agency-based theories, including an assertion that Rahim had actual or apparent authority to act.

The probate court granted Roshan’s motion, declared the deed void for forgery, and quieted title. After severance, the order became final and appealable.

Issues Decided

• Whether summary judgment was proper declaring the deed void for forgery when the named grantor, Karim, did not sign it.
• Whether the summary-judgment evidence conclusively established that Rahim lacked authority to sign Karim’s name to the deed.
• Whether Aliza Groups raised a genuine issue of material fact through agency-based arguments sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
• Whether appellate arguments focused on Karim’s supposed authorization were preserved when the summary-judgment response primarily argued Rahim acted as Roshan’s agent.
• Whether a forged deed could nevertheless be salvaged through the buyer’s alternative theories in the face of a void transfer.

Rules Applied

The court applied familiar but powerful Texas title rules.

• A forged deed is void as a matter of law and passes no title. The court cited Bellaire Kirkpatrick Joint Venture v. Loots, 826 S.W.2d 205, 210 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1992, writ denied), and Morris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 334 S.W.3d 838, 843 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.).
• The opinion used the Penal Code definition of “forge” to frame the inquiry: a writing is forged if it purports to be the act of another who did not authorize that act. See Tex. Penal Code § 32.21(a)(1)(A), as referenced through the court’s citation to Henry v. Henry.
• On summary judgment, the movant must conclusively prove entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and once that burden is met, the nonmovant must raise a genuine issue of material fact. The court cited standard authorities including Travelers Ins. v. Joachim, Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, and M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich.
• Error preservation in the summary-judgment context remains strict. A party may not defeat summary judgment on appeal using a theory that does not comport with the argument presented in the response below. The court cited Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c), Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Murphy, and Anderton v. Cawley.
• The court also noted that objections to the use of interested-witness testimony must be preserved; they cannot be raised for the first time later.

Although the opinion was framed as a forgery case, it is especially significant for family lawyers because it functionally rejects the idea that generic assertions of family-member agency can validate a conveyance of homestead property absent competent evidence of actual authority.

Application

The court’s analysis was straightforward and devastating to the buyer’s position. Roshan’s summary-judgment proof did exactly what title counsel and family-law trial lawyers should aim to do in these cases: it established, through direct testimony from the person who actually signed the instrument, that Karim did not sign the deed and that Rahim lacked authority from either parent to execute any deed or lien on the property. That proof facially established forgery under Texas law because the instrument purported to be Karim’s act without Karim’s authorization.

Once Roshan made that showing, the burden shifted. At that point, Aliza Groups needed competent summary-judgment evidence raising a real fact issue on authority. But its response largely took a different tack. Rather than squarely producing evidence that Karim authorized Rahim to sign Karim’s name, Aliza Groups argued around the forgery problem. It acknowledged the forgery, complained that the family should not benefit from it, invoked detrimental reliance and specific performance concepts, and suggested Rahim had authority to act for Roshan. That was a mismatch. The operative question was whether the deed was Karim’s authorized act. On that record, it plainly was not.

The court also found a preservation failure. On appeal, Aliza Groups tried to sharpen its position into an argument that Rahim may have had authority to sign for Karim. But the court held that this appellate framing did not comport with the arguments made in the summary-judgment response, which had focused instead on Rahim’s alleged authority as Roshan’s agent. That distinction mattered. A party opposing summary judgment must clearly present the theory it wants the trial court to consider; it cannot pivot on appeal to a different authority theory.

Even apart from preservation, the opinion indicates the buyer still lacked evidence sufficient to create a fact issue. Roshan’s evidence was direct, positive, and unequivocal: Karim did not sign; Rahim did; and Rahim had no authority. In a family-property case, that kind of record is especially hard to overcome when the property at issue is the marital homestead and no spouse joined in the transfer.

Holding

The court held that the probate court properly granted partial summary judgment declaring the deed to Aliza Groups void for forgery. Because Karim did not sign the deed and the summary-judgment record showed Rahim lacked authority to sign on Karim’s behalf, the instrument conveyed no title.

The court also held that Aliza Groups failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on authority. Its appellate argument did not match the argument preserved in the trial court, and in any event the record did not supply competent evidence sufficient to counter the direct testimony negating authorization.

Finally, the court affirmed the order quieting title in Roshan’s favor. For purposes of the severed title dispute, the forged deed was a nullity, and the buyer’s attempt to rely on agency-inflected theories did not save the transfer.

Practical Application

For Texas family-law litigators, Noorani should immediately go into the toolkit for cases involving unauthorized deeds, refinance documents, lien instruments, powers of attorney, partition agreements, and “asset-protection” transfers executed by one spouse, an adult child, or a business insider. The opinion is particularly useful where one side tries to muddy a clean forgery record by recasting the dispute as one about informal family authority. If your opposing party cannot produce competent proof that the actual owner authorized the signature, you should frame the case as a void-instrument dispute, not merely an equity dispute.

In divorce cases, this matters when one spouse claims that title was transferred before separation by a child or relative “for the family,” or when a spouse attempts to validate a deed signed outside the presence or knowledge of the titled spouse. In probate-linked family litigation, it matters when heirs or third parties try to lock in title transfers made during periods of illness, dependency, or financial distress. And in enforcement or receivership settings, it gives counsel a concise answer to the recurring argument that someone with apparent family involvement must have had authority to bind the owners.

Strategically, the case also reinforces the importance of precise preservation in summary-judgment practice. If the opponent’s theory shifts from actual authority to apparent authority, from one principal to another, or from title validity to equity, press the mismatch. Noorani demonstrates that courts will hold parties to the theory they actually presented below.

For homestead litigation specifically, family-law counsel should treat this opinion as a reminder that title and occupancy narratives are not enough for the transferee. Unauthorized signatures do not become legally effective merely because the transferee advanced money, believed the signer had family standing, or can spin a fairness story. If the deed is forged, title never moved.

Checklists

Build the Forgery Record Early

• Obtain the allegedly forged instrument and all related closing documents.
• Identify exactly whose signature appears on the deed and who actually signed.
• Secure affidavits or declarations from the signer and the named grantor, if available.
• Pin down whether any written power of attorney or written authorization existed.
• Establish whether the signer understood the instrument to be a deed, lien, or something else.
• Tie the property to community-property and homestead status with deeds, tax records, inventories, and occupancy evidence.
• Confirm whether both spouses knew of or consented to the transfer.

Defeat “Agency” Theories at Summary Judgment

• Force the opposing party to identify the alleged principal with precision.
• Separate actual authority from apparent authority and insist on evidence for each.
• Highlight the difference between authority to discuss a transaction and authority to execute a deed.
• Emphasize direct testimony negating authority from the owner whose signature appears on the deed.
• Argue preservation if the nonmovant’s appellate or hearing argument departs from the written response.
• Object to conclusory affidavits that recite agency without underlying facts.
• Keep the court focused on the dispositive question: whether the deed purported to be the act of a person who did not authorize it.

Use the Case in Divorce and Property Division Litigation

• Investigate any pre-divorce transfers of marital real estate involving relatives or family businesses.
• Examine whether one spouse claims a child or intermediary handled the closing informally.
• Challenge deeds, liens, and partition-related documents executed without competent authority.
• Plead both trespass-to-try-title and quiet-title theories where appropriate.
• Use probate filings, estate inventories, and prior sworn statements to establish community ownership.
• Frame forged transfer documents as void, not merely voidable, to narrow equitable defenses.

Protect Your Client from the Non-Prevailing Party’s Mistakes

• Do not concede forgery while hoping equity will cure the title problem.
• Do not rely on vague assertions that a family member was “handling things.”
• Do not wait until appeal to articulate the correct authority theory.
• Do not assume apparent authority will validate a deed affecting homestead property.
• Do not neglect written authorization issues when a non-owner or non-titled family member signs.
• Do not ignore the evidentiary force of your own witness’s admissions on lack of authority.

Homestead-Focused Intake for Family Lawyers

• Ask who lived in the property at all relevant times.
• Determine whether the property was acquired during marriage.
• Verify whether only one spouse appears on title despite community acquisition.
• Ask whether any spouse ever moved out or abandoned homestead use.
• Investigate whether any refinance, hard-money loan, or business loan touched the property.
• Request all powers of attorney, loan applications, and closing instructions.
• Look for evidence that a supposed conveyance was actually presented as a lien or financing document.

Citation

Aliza Groups, Inc. v. Roshan K. Noorani, No. 02-25-00410-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 30, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

Family Law Crossover

This ruling can be weaponized effectively in both divorce and custody-adjacent litigation, especially where control of the homestead affects possession, leverage, support, or settlement posture. In a divorce, if the other side claims that a disputed transfer of the marital residence was authorized through a child, relative, or family business representative, Noorani supports an aggressive summary-judgment push: if the owner did not sign and did not authorize the signature, the deed is void and title never left the community estate. That can collapse reimbursement claims, standing arguments, and third-party interventions built on the supposed transfer.

In custody-related cases, the crossover is more tactical but still significant. Possession of the child often turns practically on possession of the residence. If one party attempts to use a questionable deed, lien, or transfer to force displacement from the home, Noorani gives family counsel a title-based countermeasure. Establish the home’s homestead and community-property character, prove the absence of authorization, and argue that the adverse claimant’s “agency” story does not create a fact issue. The result can stabilize occupancy, preserve the status quo for the child, and deprive the opposing party of a leverage point built on an invalid instrument.

More broadly, the opinion is a reminder that family-law cases often turn on disciplined civil-litigation instincts. When the facts support forgery and no competent authorization evidence exists, do not let the case drift into moral blame or equitable fog. Force the court to decide the legal status of the instrument. Under Noorani, that approach can end the dispute quickly and decisively.

~~79e115e7-98a2-4a05-89e9-9528b4933e02~~