Time: Sat Dec 06 19:01:31 1997 To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: need to talk Cc: Bcc: References: 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: T0---------T1---------T2 | | | | | 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