Time: Sat Dec 06 19:01:31 1997
To: <brendamc@admin.hilconet.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: need to talk

Hi Brenda,

I have put in approx. one hour so far,
reviewing the file you arranged so nicely, 
in proper chronological order.

I would like to speak with you on the
telephone, about the theory of this case.

Here are some observations, without going
to the next level of analysis:

The "quit claim" event is crucial.  Situate
it at Time 1 ("T1"), as follows:

       |          |          |
       |          |          trust owns land
       |          |
       |          quit claim
       Vernor owns land

For Vernor to prove that the trust had
allodial title at T2, he must be able
to carry his burden of establishing:

1.  allodial title at T0
2.  lawful (not fraudulent) conveyance at T1

Now, without answering this question, consider
the point in time at which Vernor took out the
loan of $100,000.  If that loan was made before
T1, then Vernor relinquished his claim to 
allodial title thereby.  If that loan was made
after T1, then the trust relinquished its claim
to allodial title thereby.  As we say in the
legal profession, equity is brutal, and a bank
loan, using real property as collateral, is a
contract enforceable in equity.  The District
Court of Texas was convened in equity, and it
was asked to enforce a contract, and that is
exactly what it did. 

I am telling you these things in order to make
you aware of the major weaknesses which I see
in the case, thus far.  These weaknesses must
be overcome, or you probably will lose at the
appellate level, in my opinion.


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail