ORIGINAL PETITION TO QUIET TITLE – 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Don Richard Grant
5001 Allyson Court,
Austin, TX 78744
(512) 888-2872
donrgrant@sbcglobal.net
Jacqueline Lilian Harrington
5001 Allyson Court,
Austin, TX 78744
[Insert Phone Number]
[Insert Email]
Petitioners in pro per
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
IN AND FOR TRAVIS COUNTY
DON RICHARD GRANT; and JACQUELINE
LILIAN HARRINGTON,
Petitioners,
vs.
JAMES AUSTIN; JUSTIN MYNIER; TYLER
WILSON; and NEW WESTERN d/b/a TEXAS
CAPITOL, LLC,
Respondent(s)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.:
ORIGINAL PETITION TO QUIET TITLE
NOW COME Don Richard Grant and Jacqueline Lilian Harrington, Petitioners, and file this Complaint
against James Austin, Justin Mynier, Tyler Wilson, and New Western d/b/a Texas Capitol, LLC,
Respondents, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:
A. PARTIES
1. Petitioner Don Richard Grant is a law-abiding, male adult citizen of sound mind and a resident of
5001 Allyson Ct., Austin, TX 78744.
ORIGINAL PETITION TO QUIET TITLE – 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Petitioner Jacqueline Lilian Harrington is a law-abiding, female adult of sound mind and a
resident of 5001 Allyson Ct., Austin, TX 78744.
3. Respondent James Austin is a male adult of sound mind and a resident of the State of Texas.
4. Respondent Justin Mynier is a male adult of sound mind and a resident of the State of Texas.
5. Respondent Tyler Wilson is a male adult of sound mind and a resident of the State of Texas.
6. Respondent New Western d/b/a Texas Capitol, LLC is a company incorporated under the laws of
the State of Texas.
B. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. Jurisdiction exists in this Court pursuant to Section 24.007 of the Texas Government Code.
8. Venue is proper in this Court because the events and causes of action described herein took place
in and within Travis County. The Subject Property in this quiet title action is also located in
Travis County.
C. FACTS COMMON TO ALL PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
9. The individuals bringing forth the legal action are residents of the property situated at 5001
Allyson Ct., Austin, TX 78744 (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property”).
10. An appraisal conducted on the Subject Property on 04/18/2023 determined its value to be
$250,000.
11. On 05/16/2023, Jacqueline, one of the Petitioners, filed a petition for divorce against Don, the
other Petitioner.
12. Currently, Jacqueline resides at 13516 Gerald Ford Street, Manor, TX 78653, while Don
continues to reside at the Subject Property.
ORIGINAL PETITION TO QUIET TITLE – 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13. In an agreement dated April 21, 2023, Don, the Petitioner, consented to selling the Subject
Property to Jacqueline, the Petitioner, for a sum of $200,000.
14. The Respondents expressed their interest in purchasing the Subject Property from Don, the
Petitioner.
15. Unfortunately, the Respondent failed to list the Subject Property on the MLS and neglected to
disclose their status as a cooperating broker.
16. Additionally, the Respondent provided misleading information, falsely claiming that New
Western and Texas Capitol, LLC were one and the same.
17. Had the broker listed the Subject Property on the MLS, Jacqueline, the Petitioner, would have
informed the Respondents about her existing contract with Don, the Petitioner.
18. Jacqueline, the Petitioner, would have also disclosed Don’s deteriorating mental capacity to the
Respondents.
19. The Respondents neglected to complete all aspects of the brokerage contract and failed to
provide a copy of the contract to the client.
20. Furthermore, the Respondents failed to ensure that all real estate-related agreements, such as
listing and representation agreements, purchase contracts, and leases, were clearly documented in
understandable language, outlining the specific terms, conditions, obligations, and commitments
of the parties involved, including the Petitioner’s HUD-1 statement.
21. Exploiting Don’s declining mental state, the Respondents took advantage by accepting an
inaccurate signature consisting only of his first and middle name.
22. The Respondents failed to exert reasonable efforts in verifying whether the Petitioner was
already bound by a current and valid exclusive agreement to receive similar real estate services.
ORIGINAL PETITION TO QUIET TITLE – 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23. If the Respondents had undertaken reasonable measures, they would have discovered that the
Petitioners were protected by a real estate contract covered by an automatic stay order issued by
the family division of this court, referenced as cause number D-1-FM 2351555.
24. However, despite this knowledge, the Respondents proceeded with attempts to forcibly remove
the Petitioners from the Subject Property. In addition to eviction threats, they resorted to
harassment and intimidation to coerce the Petitioners into vacating the Subject Property.
25. As a consequence of the Respondents’ actions, the Petitioners have endured emotional distress,
and, in particular, Don, the Petitioner, has experienced a nervous breakdown.
26. The Respondents’ conduct has caused significant harm to the Petitioners, and as a result, they
should be held liable for compensating the Petitioners for the damages incurred.
D. VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
27. Upon information and belief, Petitioners allege that there are no known encumbrances of record
to the Subject Property.
28. The value of the property is estimated to be $263,089.
E. CAUSE OF ACTION
(Quiet Title Against All Respondents)
29. The Petitioners, Jacqueline and Don, are the rightful owners of the property situated at 5001
Allyson Ct., Austin, TX 78744 (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property”). The
Respondents, New Western Real Estate and Texas Capitol, LLC, have no legitimate claim to the
Subject Property.
ORIGINAL PETITION TO QUIET TITLE – 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30. The Petitioners have a valid contract to purchase the Subject Property from Don. This contract
was executed on April 21, 2023, and it is currently in full force and effect. The Respondents are
aware of this contract, but they have attempted to interfere with it by falsely claiming that they
have an exclusive right to sell the Subject Property. This claim is false, and the Respondents
have no basis for it.
31. The Respondents have also engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation in an attempt to
force the Petitioners to vacate the Subject Property. They have made threats to evict the
Petitioners, and they have also resorted to physical violence. This conduct is unacceptable, and it
is clear that the Respondents are not acting in good faith.
32. The Petitioners have suffered significant emotional distress as a result of the Respondents’
actions. Don has even experienced a nervous breakdown. The Respondents should be held
accountable for their conduct, and they should be ordered to pay damages to the Petitioners.
33. A suit to clear title or quiet title — also known as a suit to remove cloud from title — relies on
the invalidity of the Respondent’s claim to the property. Longoria v. Lasater, 292 S.W.3d 156,
165 n. 7 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2009, pet. denied). It exists “to enable the holder of the feeblest
equity to remove from his way to legal title any unlawful hindrance having the appearance of
better right.” Bell v. Ott, 606 S.W.2d 942, 952 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.)
(quoting Thomson v. Locke, 66 Tex. 383, 1 S.W. 112, 115 (1886)); see also ; Hahn v. Love, 321
S.W.3d 517, 523-24 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, 321 S.W.3d at 531 (quoting Bell, 606
S.W.2d at 952).
34. “A cloud on title exists when an outstanding claim or encumbrance is shown, which on its face,
if valid, would affect or impair the title of the owner of the property.” Hahn, 321 S.W.3d at 531.
ORIGINAL PETITION TO QUIET TITLE – 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The effect of a suit to quiet title is to declare invalid or ineffective the Respondent’s claim to
title. See id.; Bell, 606 S.W.2d at 952 (holding that quiet title enables holder of feeblest equity to
remove unlawful hindrance). “[T]he Petitioner has the burden of supplying the proof necessary
to establish his superior equity and right to relief.” Hahn, 321 S.W.3d at 531; see Bell, 606
S.W.2d at 952.
35. The Petitioner must prove, as a matter of law, that he has a right of ownership and that the
adverse claim is a cloud on the title that equity will remove. Hahn, 321 S.W.3d at 531.
36. The Petitioners are confident that they will be successful in their quest to quiet title to the Subject
Property. They have a valid contract to purchase the property, and the Respondents have no
legitimate claim to it. The Respondents’ conduct has been reprehensible, and they should be held
accountable for their actions.
37. In addition to the arguments made above, there are several other reasons why a judgement to
quiet title should be awarded in this case. First, the Respondents have failed to meet their burden
of proof. They have not presented any evidence to support their claim that they have an exclusive
right to sell the Subject Property. The only evidence that they have presented is their own word,
which is not credible.
38. Second, the Respondents’ actions have been malicious. They have deliberately interfered with
the Petitioners’ contract to purchase the Subject Property. They have also made threats to evict
the Petitioners and have resorted to physical violence. This conduct is clearly malicious, and it
warrants a judgement to quiet title in favor of the Petitioners.
39. Third, the Petitioners have suffered significant harm as a result of the Respondents’ actions. They
have been subjected to emotional distress, and Don has even experienced a nervous breakdown.
ORIGINAL PETITION TO QUIET TITLE – 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Respondents should be held accountable for this harm, and they should be ordered to pay
damages to the Petitioners.
40. For all of these reasons, a judgement to quiet title should be awarded in favor of the Petitioners.
This is the only way to protect the Petitioners’ ownership interest in the Subject Property and to
hold the Respondents accountable for their malicious conduct.
F. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioners respectfully request this Honorable
Court to GRANT them the following reliefs:
a. A judgment quieting the title to the Subject Property in the name of the Petitioners.
b. An award of damages to the Petitioners in an amount to be determined at trial.
c. An award of costs and attorneys’ fees to the Petitioners.
Dated this ___ day of June, 2023.
Respectfully Submitted,
Don Richard Grant,
Petitioner in pro per
Jacqueline Lilian Harrington,
Petitioner in pro per
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )