Carson et al v. Winter Gordon, Junior is a reason you should not name your son after yourself. But if you insist, at least spell his name correctly.
The Gordons
Winter Gordon was born in the 19th century. His son was Winter Gordon, Junior. The court referred to him as “Father” or “Decedent”. Father had a son born in 1955 named on the birth certificate as “Wenter” Gordon, Junior. The court referred to him as “Gordon”. His opponents in the litigation probably used other names more akin to epithets.
Throughout his life Gordon referred to himself as “Winter Gordon, Junior”. Father died in 2011 and Gordon reported Father/Decedent’s name as “Winter Gordon” and his own name as “Winter Gordon, Junior”. Father’s will was deemed valid after a will contest. Father left his entire estate to Carson, who was Junior’s niece and Father’s granddaughter.
A tax suit leads to confusion
The Brazos ISD sued Carson for delinquent taxes claiming two tracts of land comprising 49 acres were owned by “Winter Gordon, Junior, et al“. Carson claimed she had never heard of the property and alleged that the property was vested in the heirs at law or devisees of “Winter Gordon, Junior, deceased”. (That would be Father.) She paid the taxes, obtained an Independent Executor’s Deed (the executor was her mother), and requested the taxing authority to place title in her name.
Unsuppported assertions fail to persuade
Gordon sued alleging that he, rather than Father, purchased the property by a deed in 2008. Carson responded by relying on the Executor’s Deed to her as the sole beneficiary of the estate of Father. She claimed that Gordon only changed his name from ”Wenter” to obfuscate and remove ownership of the property from Father’s estate.
Summary judgment for Gordon was affirmed. His declaratory judgment action was treated as a trespass to try title claim requiring proof of a regular chain of conveyances from the sovereign and through a superior claim from a common grantor.
Gordon presented evidence demonstrating a chain of conveyances from the Sovereign up to the 2008 deed showing the grantors conveyed the property to “Winter Gordon, Junior”. He offered several detailed affidavits supporting his claim that he was the actual buyer. Carson’s response was that the property was actually purchased by Father and not Gordon, they never shared the same name during Father’s lifetime, and Gordon only changed his name five years after Father’s death. She presented a title company’s letter concluding record title appeared to be vested in Father.
The court believed that Gordon’s proof was the kind that could have been easily and conveniently rebutted and the testimony was of a nature which could be effectively countered by opposing evidence. That, Carson did not do.
Carson missed the point. The fact in dispute was whether Gordon or Father was “Winter Gordon, Junior who purchased the property in 2008.” The court found no authority requiring a purchaser to identify himself in a deed by his name exactly as it is written on his birth certificate.
Carson asserted that Gordon was not the true purchaser but was unable to refute the material facts in Gordon’s affidavits testifying that he was the purchaser of the property in 2008. Carson presented argument and supposition but no evidence that discredited Gordon’s association with the transaction.
Carson did not carry her burden to demonstrate that Junior’s claim that he was the signatory on the 2008 deed was false. The trial court judgment was affirmed. Carson demonstrated no genuine issue of material fact. Gordon was entitled to a judgment on his trespass to try title claim.
Your musical interlude.
[View source.]
