who failed to ensure that the seller actually had good title under the Act are not instructive in the present case where the seller had good title and the noncompliance is solely between the two parties to the transaction. See, e.g., Hitt v. Baker, No. 05-95-01647-CV, 1997 WL 476331 (Tex.App.-Dallas, Aug. 21, 1997); Drake Ins., 606 S.W.2d at 817. “Notwithstanding compliance with this chapter, equitable title to a vehicle passes to the purchaser of the vehicle at the time the vehicle is the subject of a sale that is enforceable by either party.” Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 501.0234(f). Although this statute uses the phrase “compliance with this chapter,” the meaning is clear: equitable title passes to the purchaser regardless of compliance or noncompliance. See Perry, 16 S.W.3d at 187 (<HOLDING>). Hence, R.K.’s failure to apply for a
holding that consent was valid despite close temporal proximity between the illegal entry and consent recognizing that a trial court has discretion to adopt or reject an agreement between the parties as part of the original divorcee decree  as equity might dictate holding the sale valid as between the original parties despite noncompliance with the act holding that the court should in the absence of fraud or improper dealing or clear inadequacy of price as of the time the sale is made or some valid legal objection sustain the trustee and ratify the sale holding that the new jersey real estate licensing act is applicable to the sale of a company through a stock sale