Mitchell Carter v. Administrator of the Estate of James M. Shumberg

Mitchell Carter v. Administrator of the Estate of James M. Shumberg

2026 WL 272453

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.), Case No. 14-25-00215-CV

Relevant Facts

• Appellant Mitchell Carter filed suit to quiet title against Creg Thompson, InTown Builders, LLC, and Jon Nassar regarding four real property lots (Lots 21-24) at 4610 Idaho in Harris County, Texas

• In May 2007, James M. Shumberg executed a warranty deed selling Lots 23 and 24 to Thompson for $10,000

• In November 2011, Nassar purchased Lots 23 and 24 at a constable's sale due to debt owed by Thompson, and the constable executed a deed on December 2, 2011

• Nassar did not record the deed until January 9, 2020, leaving a gap in the public record

• In 2013, Carter discovered an abandoned warehouse on the Property, installed doors, maintained it, and established a flooring manufacturing business there

• In 2018, Carter contacted Thompson about purchasing the Property, offering $6,000 with a $3,000 down payment while Thompson was incarcerated

• Thompson signed a handwritten letter agreeing to accept $6,000 for Lots 23 and 24, though he did not own them at that time due to Nassar's unrecorded 2011 purchase

• Carter executed an 'Affidavit Acknowledging Purchase of Property' on August 29, 2018, and filed it in Harris County records on August 31, 2018

• On May 21, 2023, Nassar executed a warranty deed granting Lots 23 and 24 to InTown Builders through Thompson as its managing member

• The trial court granted directed verdict against Carter's adverse possession claim and found Thompson and InTown Builders owned Lots 23 and 24

Legal Issues

• Whether Carter established himself as a bona fide purchaser of Lots 23 and 24

• Whether the trial court properly granted declaratory judgment as opposed to trespass-to-try-title relief

• Whether the trial court erred in failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law despite Carter's request

• Whether Carter presented sufficient evidence to overcome the directed verdict on his adverse possession claim

Positions of the Parties

• Carter argued he owned the property under adverse possession beginning in June 2013, and alternatively as a bona fide purchaser based on his 2018 agreement with Thompson for $6,000. He contended that because Nassar's deed was not recorded until 2020, he had no notice that Thompson did not own the property in 2018. He also challenged the trial court's failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law.

• Thompson and InTown Builders argued they owned Lots 23 and 24 through a valid chain of title beginning with Nassar's unrecorded 2011 purchase at a constable's sale and culminating in the 2023 warranty deed to InTown Builders. They moved for directed verdict on adverse possession, arguing Carter failed to prove all required elements. They sought declaratory judgment to establish their ownership rights. Nassar's position (through his appellee brief) supported the trial court's judgment.

Decision of the Court and Reasons

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment as modified. The court held that Carter waived his complaint about the failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law because he failed to file a timely 'Notice of Past Due Findings' as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 297. On the bona fide purchaser claim, the court found sufficient evidence supporting the trial court's implied finding that Carter was not a bona fide purchaser, as conflicting evidence existed regarding whether Carter acted in good faith and without notice, given his contacts with Nassar and the circumstances surrounding his occupation of the property. The court sustained Carter's issue challenging the grant of declaratory judgment, finding that because Thompson and InTown Builders pleaded trespass-to-try-title counterclaims seeking to adjudicate legal title to land, the Declaratory Judgments Act could not be used; instead, the trespass-to-try-title statute provided the exclusive remedy. Therefore, the court deleted the portions of the judgment granting declaratory relief. On the adverse possession issue, the court affirmed the directed verdict, concluding that Carter's own testimony about attempting to purchase the property demonstrated a lack of hostile intent required for adverse possession, as the possession must unmistakably assert exclusive ownership contrary to the owner's claim.

Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Robert Willmore Mallory and Michelle Yvonne Givens, as Administrators of the Estate of Robert Thurston Mallory

2026 WL 203024 (Table)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Case No. 305 EAL 2025

Relevant Facts

• Norfolk Southern Railway Company filed a Petition for Allowance of Appeal from an Order of the Superior Court

• The underlying dispute involved Robert Willmore Mallory and Michelle Yvonne Givens acting as administrators of the estate of Robert Thurston Mallory

• The matter was appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Legal Issues

• Whether the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania should grant Norfolk Southern Railway Company's Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Superior Court's order

Positions of the Parties

• Norfolk Southern Railway Company petitioned for an allowance of appeal, seeking review of the Superior Court's order

• Robert Willmore Mallory and Michelle Yvonne Givens, as administrators of Robert Thurston Mallory's estate, opposed or did not support the allowance of appeal

Decision of the Court and Reasons

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied the Petition for Allowance of Appeal by order dated January 27, 2026. The court issued a brief per curiam order without providing detailed explanation or reasoning, as indicated by the table citation format, effectively upholding the Superior Court's order and declining to review the matter.