notice to the Plaintiffs of Union Bank’s lien on the Texas After-acquired Properties, the Court agrees that the Plaintiffs are not on constructive notice of Union Bank’s lien on the Texas After-acquired Properties because the Texas Mortgage Documents do not specifically reference the leases to be acquired by Cornerstone in the future. To the extent the cases identified by the Plaintiffs directly address conveyances of future interests in real property, Texas law appears to require that the instrument contain a description of the exact property to be acquired by the transferor to constitute constructive notice upon recording. See, e.g., Simon v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., 126 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tex.Civ.App.1939) (citing Richardson v. Washington, 88 Tex. 339, 31 S.W. 614, 617 (1895) (<HOLDING>)). Since the Texas Mortgage Documents contain
holding that parties to chattel mortgage of afteracquired property must show transferors intent to acquire the very property that lien will encumber holding that a bank holding a chattel mortgage on an automobile damaged in a collision had an equitable lien in insurance proceeds because the mortgage required mortgagor to insure the vehicle and name mortgagee as a loss payee holding that a mortgage encompasses a property right holding that mortgage encompasses a property right holding that payment of debt extinguished accompanying chattel mortgage under precode law