## Facts

- Manuela Montoya Yanez, the record owner of certain real property, pledged the property as collateral to Raymond Telles (a bail bondsman) for two bail bonds totaling $30,000 for her son-in-law.
- On February 12, 1992, Montoya executed a deed of trust securing a note payable to Telles; the instrument included an express statement that the property was not her homestead and that she renounced homestead protections.
- After the defendant on the bonds failed to appear and the bonds were forfeited, Montoya executed and recorded a power of attorney appointing her daughter, Sandra Luz Antillón Hirales, as attorney-in-fact.
- An April 25, 1992 instrument purporting to convey the property from Montoya to Gilberto Sanchez was recorded on May 7, 1992, but it was not signed by Montoya and was not signed by Sandra as attorney-in-fact; the only signature on the instrument was Sanchez’s, placed in the grantor signature space.
- The instrument lacked witness signatures and had a defective acknowledgment (including an illegible notary signature without a printed name).
- Telles later recorded his deed of trust and foreclosed under it via trustee’s sale, purchasing the property and recording the foreclosure documents.
- After suit was filed, Sanchez procured a “correction deed” executed by Sandra attempting to cure defects in the earlier conveyance.
- Telles sued to quiet title in himself and to invalidate Sanchez’s claimed title; the trial court granted summary judgment for Telles, and Sanchez appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the recorded instrument purporting to convey the property to Sanchez was void for lack of execution by the grantor or an authorized attorney-in-fact and for defective acknowledgment.
2. Whether Sanchez could claim bona fide purchaser status despite the defects in the conveyance to him.
3. Whether a later “correction deed” could retroactively validate a void prior instrument and defeat Telles’s title acquired through foreclosure.
4. Whether homestead protections invalidated or limited Telles’s deed of trust and foreclosure.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Telles, quieting title in him.
- The purported deed to Sanchez was void because it was not signed by the grantor or by a duly authorized agent and was not properly acknowledged; it conveyed no title.
- Because the deed was void, Sanchez could not qualify as a bona fide purchaser as a matter of law.
- The post-suit correction deed could not cure the fundamental defect (lack of execution) and could not revive or relate back to validate the void instrument.
- The homestead defense failed because the summary-judgment record showed no homestead designation or claim and the deed of trust expressly disclaimed homestead status.

## Legal Principles

- A deed conveying real property must be executed by the grantor or by a person lawfully authorized to act for the grantor; an instrument not so executed is void and transfers no title.
- Bona fide purchaser protections do not apply where the purchaser’s claimed title derives from a void instrument.
- A correction deed may correct certain errors in an otherwise valid conveyance but cannot transform a void deed into a valid conveyance where the original lacked proper execution.
- Homestead protection requires proof of homestead status; an express “not homestead” disclaimer in the lien instrument is strong evidence against a later homestead claim.

## Conclusion

The court held that Sanchez’s recorded instrument was a nullity because it lacked the grantor’s (or authorized agent’s) signature, leaving Sanchez without title and without bona fide purchaser protection; the later correction deed could not repair the defect, and the homestead challenge failed, so Telles’s deed of trust foreclosure produced superior title.


Sanchez v. Telles, 960 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997)