[ryukoposting]

IANAL but Texas law seems to allow a great deal of flexibility in deeds. One interesting quote I found:

> spelling out any additional agreements between the parties within the four corners of the deed itself can eliminate any doubt or ambiguity as to the content of those agreements.

The word "any" does some heavy lifting here, I'll admit.

> How can a grantor insure that the “as is” provision is unconditionally accepted by the grantee? The answer is to require that the grantee sign and acknowledge the deed

This quote is using as-is provisions since those are very common, but it seems like this doctrine applies to any condition in a deed.

Did a representative for the city ever sign the deed?

https://lonestarlandlaw.com/deeds-in-texas/

[jeffbee]

Property law in America is insane from all sides. It's one of the few countries where you can just say something is yours, and someone else can disagree, and you get to argue about it forever. The only reason it is like that is we are still pretending all lands belong to the King of England. We never went back and fixed it. Even England itself fixed this, but we're too stupid.

[ryukoposting]

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

The land is owned by the city, that much is not in question.

If they signed the deed, they agreed to the condition that they would use it to build a park. If they didn't sign the deed, they never agreed to that condition.