Articles
The Firm publishes selected articles, firm updates, publications, and litigation materials involving legal, property, tax, business, and technical issues.
News
The Overton Law Firm, P.C. assisted Michael and Angela Cohen with title work, the Fort Bend County private-street name-change process, and related construction-contract, builder, and MUD-district issues for the exceptional Katy estate now listed as 4233 Two Gun Way.
Read firm update →The Supreme Court of the United States denied writs related to the application of Mennonite, and the parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Mayronne Group. The trial court found Waterman v. Tidewater Assoc. Oil Co., 213 La. 588 (1947) controlled and that any concerns of the Supreme Court of Louisiana related to title gaps and possession were cured. The Court affirmed and found that the 1925 tax sale was an absolute nullity under Waterman.
The Supreme Court of Louisiana concluded that Mennonite could not apply retroactively to have the 1925 tax sale declared an absolute nullity. The Court found Gulotta v. Cutshaw, 283 So. 2d 482 (La. 1973) dispositive of the lack of notice issue. Under Gulotta, lack of notice to the record owner in a tax sale is a relative nullity. A relative nullity does not prevent the running of the peremptive period and therefore could not be a valid basis for summary judgment invalidating the tax sale.
The Court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting the Mayronne Group’s summary judgment dismissing the Zodiac Group’s claims because there was no evidence that the Sheriff gave notice of the 1925 tax sale to the record owner. The Court held that the lack of notice was a violation of constitutional due process notice requirements that rendered the 1925 sale an absolute nullity under Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (1983).
In Iademarco v. Preli Constructors, Inc., the appellants seek reversal of a directed verdict entered after trial in a residential drainage and property-damage dispute arising from neighboring construction activities.
According to the appellate briefs, the appellants contend that development of an uphill residential lot altered the natural flow of surface water and increased runoff onto their property, resulting in claimed foundation and interior damage, and the appellees deny that any alleged diversion occurred and contend that the evidence showed only the natural downhill flow of water, together with drainage-control measures implemented during and after construction.
The appeal involves issues concerning Texas Water Code § 11.086, negligence, nuisance, trespass, causation, and proof of damages. The parties also dispute whether certain causation testimony was properly limited or excluded and whether sufficient evidence existed to submit the claims to the jury.
The appellants seek reversal and remand for a new trial. The appellees seek affirmance of the trial court’s take-nothing judgment. Oral argument has been requested.