Recitals In Deeds Are Not Inadmissible Hearsay-within-hearsay Under Texas Law

Wells Fargo Bank N.A., vs. Mason, 05-12-01590-CV (Tex.App-Dallas November 5, 2013) is an appeal from a trial court judgment awarding Plaintiff damages and possession in a suit for forcible detainer. Defendant appealed the verdict contending, inter alia, that the trial court erred by overruling Defendant’s hearsay-within-hearsay objection to the trustee’s deed being allowed into evidence. Defendant objected to the recitals describing the existence of the note and deed of trust, the default on the note and deed of trust, the appointment of the substitute trustee, the acceleration of the note and notice thereof, notice of the trustee’s sale, and the sale of the property to appellee at public auction at the courthouse. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed and held that the evidence presented was not hearsay and therefore was properly admitted. When considering if the recitals in the trustee’s deed are hearsay, Texas Rule of Evidence 803(15) provides that statements in documents affecting an interest in property are not hearsay if the recitals are relevant to the purpose of the document, unless dealings with the property since the document was made have been inconsistent with the truth of the statement or purpose of the document. There was no doubt that the trustee’s deed was a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property; the issue on appeal was whether the recitals were relevant to the purpose of the document. The appellate court looked at the advisory committee’s notes to Section 803(15). Those provide that recitals in deeds are excluded from the hearsay rule when they are germane to the purpose of the document. Since the purpose of the deed was to transfer property the recitals therein are germane. It further found nothing in the subsequent dealings to be inconsistent with the truth of the recitals or the purpose of the deed. They are therefore relevant and not excluded by hearsay.

Download Related Document