- 8 -
as against the claims of the identified defendants and others.
Among defendants identified in the complaint are “the heirs and
devisees of [decedent]”. With respect to unidentified
defendants, the complaint avers that there might be persons
unknown to Ms. Williams claiming, or who might claim, an interest
in the Abagail ranch, adverse to her interest as the fee simple
holder of the title to the property. The complaint states that
each and all of the identified defendants, as well as any unknown
persons, “are without any right, title, estate, or interest in,
or lien or encumbrance upon, the Property [Abagail Ranch], and
therefore have no valid estate, right, title, or interest in or
to, or lien or encumbrance upon, the Property or any portion
thereof.” By the cross-complaint, cross-complainant set forth a
cause of action against Ms. Williams individually, and in her
capacity as personal representative of the estate of decedent,
for specific performance of a land transaction involving the
Abagail ranch.
Cause Nos. 96-60 and 96-109 were consolidated and a nonjury
trial was held in each, from July 14 through July 18, 1997, in
Cause No. 96-60, and on November 12 and 13, 1997, in Cause No.
96-109.
On April 8, 1998, in connection with Cause No. 96-109, the
State court issued its “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order” (the Cause No. 96-109 report), together with attendant
Judgment (the Judgment in Cause No. 96-109). Two conclusions
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011