On November 6, 2026, the Texas First Court of Appeals issued a memorandum opinion allowing a deceased doctor’s estate to withdraw its claims against a subsequent property buyer in a long-running title dispute.
The ruling, documented in records available on Justia, reversed a lower court’s refusal to recognize the estate’s notice of nonsuit.
The litigation centers on a parcel of land originally conveyed to Shiva Investment Group in 1992. In 2009, a disputed deed purportedly transferred the property from Shiva Investment Group to The 2525 Brothers, L.P., bearing the signature of Dr. R.K. Dhingra. Dhingra’s estate subsequently alleged that the signature was forged by David Scheffler, who controlled The 2525 Brothers.
In 2010, the company transferred the property to Malachite Venture Corporation, bringing a subsequent buyer into the disputed ownership chain. Criminal proceedings followed against Scheffler, who was initially placed on deferred adjudication before being adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 10 years in prison for securing the execution of documents by deception.
During the property litigation, Shiva Investment Group executed a special warranty deed in 2018 transferring its interest to Dhingra’s estate. Malachite subsequently sought summary judgment on June 23, 2021, arguing that neither Dhingra nor the estate owned the property when the initial lawsuit was filed.
Before the trial court could rule on that motion, the estate filed a notice of nonsuit to withdraw its claims against Malachite without prejudice. The withdrawal applied exclusively to the claims against the later buyer, leaving claims against Scheffler and other defendants intact.
Malachite objected to the withdrawal, maintaining that it was an attempt to evade an unfavorable judgment after years of litigation and would interfere with its own counterclaims. The trial court sustained the objections, refused the nonsuit, and granted summary judgment in favor of Malachite.
The appeals court disagreed, pointing to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 162 and 163, which permit a plaintiff to take a nonsuit before introducing all evidence at trial other than rebuttal evidence. The panel determined that the estate filed its notice before the summary judgment was issued, meaning the withdrawal took effect automatically without requiring judicial approval.
The appellate court also rejected Malachite’s arguments that the withdrawal would cause unfair prejudice, noting that any independent claims for affirmative relief properly pleaded by the company would survive the dismissal. The ruling does not determine the validity of the 2009 deed or establish final ownership of the property. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.
