Epiphany Strikes Gold within Texas Courts by Invoking a Fraudulent Application of the Starker Exchange

In the Scott case below, we’ve conducted an exhaustive examination of the real estate transactions and transfers.

Key players in this saga include Kevin Pawlowski of Epiphany Properties LLC (also known as Christian Consultants of Texas, or CCTX, a label seemingly acknowledged as a farce), and Scott McClellan of Gold Coast Equity LLC, a Texas Realtor with a history of sanctions.

In 2004, Stephen Scott and Deborah Scott (now deceased) executed a note worth $69,500 to Houston Habitat for Humanity, Inc., due in June 2034.

Reportedly, on December 21, 2023, Stephen Scott and Adrianna Scott entered a sales contract with Pawlowski of Epiphany, selling their home for $52,000, with “one month’s rent and moving boxes” thrown in for a swift eviction.

The property in question is 9702 Shive Dr., Houston, Texas, currently valued at $175,800.

A $10 Special Warranty Deed was filed in Harris County Real Property Records on March 21, 2024 (signed March 18), fraudulently transferring property from Adrianna Scott and Stephen Scott to Epiphany Properties, LLC.

No estate/probate case online was found related to Deborah Scott.

Moreover, the Scotts couldn’t legally transfer ownership without settling the outstanding mortgage with Habitat, which has a remaining 10-year mortgage on the original $69,500. There’s no mortgage release recorded in Harris County records.

On May 31, 2024, several filings were made in Harris County.

Firstly, a second $10 fraudulent transfer from Epiphany Properties LLC to Gold Coast Equity LLC was recorded, signed by Kevin Pawlowski, dated May 23, 2024.

The next day, on May 24, Col Capitals LLC signed a Deed of Trust and Security Agreement to Noble Mortgage & Investments LLC for $142,500, along with an assignment of rents. This was signed by member Juan Pablo Roa, believed to be a Project Engineer in Houston for Schultz Burman.

We assert numerous legal and financial issues with this transaction, as outlined further in this article.

During our investigation, we questioned the legitimacy and legality of the second $10 fraudulent transfer between Pawlowski’s and McClellan’s entities, leading us to research the “Starker Exchange.”

Based on a Texas appellate opinion from 1985, it corroborates our suspicions that flipping the purported purchase from Epiphany to Gold Coast – to evade tax liability – would nullify the contract.

The sellers in the precedent case (equivalent to the Scott’s in this instance) contested the contract’s validity upon a third party entering it, as it should have been concluded financially and legally by Epiphany before any transfer to Gold Coast.

However, due to recent separate litigation involving Gold Coast, we contend this is another planned and premeditated scheme to defraud distressed victims from asserting any legal rights to compensation in Texas courts, shielding Kevin Pawlowski and Epiphany Properties LLC from legal expenses in defending any litigation related to the actual fraud against distressed homeowners and/or their immediate family.

In the Clarence Charles case below, Capital Title’s lawyer argued that Harris County District Judge Beau Miller ruled Fidelity Title had no liability “to a third party (a stranger),” affirmed by Justice Meg Poissant at COA14.

We argue both these rulings would be erroneous if applied to the Scott case, as Texas courts contradict the United States Supreme Court’s ruling interpreting “actual fraud” to encompass fraudulent conveyance schemes, even when they don’t involve false representations.

As our summary demonstrates, considering the Starker case, the contract was void from inception, and the second sham conveyance to Gold Coast constitutes “actual fraud.”

We presume the Habitat mortgage wasn’t repaid nor the $52k paid to the Scott’s before the fraudulent conveyance from Epiphany to Gold Coast.

This alone nullifies the deal, and it’s difficult to believe the loan broker and title company were unaware of publicly available records in Harris County, upon which we rely solely to present this summary of blatant “actual fraud.”

We aren’t legal experts, but common sense indicates this is a fraudulent seizure of a distressed family home driven by financial greed by all parties to the illegal taking of the Scott’s homestead property in Harris County, Texas.

Capital Title did not owe any duties to the Plaintiffs as a matter of law.

Texas law leaves no doubt on this issue — a closer and escrow agent in a real estate transaction do not owe duties to non-parties to the transaction.

See Muller v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 525 S.W.3d 859, 872 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.); Gary E. Patterson & Assocs., P.C. v. Holub, 264 S.W.3d 180, 203 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied); see also Home Loan Corp. v. Tex. Am. Title Co., 191 S.W.3d 728, 733-34 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied)

(“To the extent an escrow agent is employed only to close a transaction in accordance with a contract that has already been entered into by the parties, it is not apparent how the agent’s duty of disclosure could extend beyond matters affecting the parties’ rights in the closing process to those concerning the merits of the underlying transaction.”).

This longstanding law was also recently affirmed by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, in Sandles v. Fid. Nat’l Fin., No. 14-22-00462-CV, at *1 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2023, pet. denied).

In Sandles, the trial court judge, the Honorable Beau Miller, dismissed Sandles claims against Fidelity National Title Insurance Company under Texas Rule of Procedure 91a.

In doing so, Judge [Beau] Miller considered the Plaintiff’s allegations, which were as follows:

[i]f any additional party has liability for an alleged failure of title, it is the Third-Party Defendant, who was responsible for research of the property in question, to discover all record owners, encumbrances, any litigation involving said property, any liens on said property, preparing a title commitment which details the circumstance under which Third- Party Defendant will issue title insurance and that it is responsible insuring that all issues, including the litigation in Cause No. 2018-69172 in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, on the title commitment are satisfactory addressed before closing the sale. Further, if any party has liability for the alleged failure of title, it is due to the failure, negligence and gross negligence of the Third-Party Defendant . . .”

See Sandals, at *2.

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals noted that Fidelity’s 91a Motion to Dismiss argued that Fidelity did not owe a duty to Sandles because Sandles was not a party to the closing between [the buyer and seller].

Id. at 4-5.

Sandles claimed that he had been unlawfully dispossessed of his property through a forged deed and claimed that the buyer did not have good title.

Sandles asserted that the title company should have determined the proper record owner as part of the closing.

Even recognizing that Sandles claimed to have been unlawfully dispossessed of his property, and recognizing the extremely onerous burden of prevailing under Rule 91a, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claims against Fidelity because Texas law holds that a “closer and escrow agent in a real estate transaction does not owe duties to non-parties to the transaction.”

Id. at 5.

As is evident, even under the extremely difficult standards of TRCP 91a, the trial court dismissed the claim because there was no duty and the court of appeals affirmed. There is no question at all –

because the Plaintiff was not a party to the subject transaction, he has no claims against Capital Title as a matter of law.

The Plaintiff’s claim against Capital Title, therefore, should be dismissed.