X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Paul Freeman conveyed title to certain property to Kenneth R. Hixon and Mary Katherine Hixon. Freeman’s grandson, also named Paul Freeman (Paul), claimed that the deed reserved to his grandfather a one-half participating interest in all minerals in or under the land conveyed. Paul claimed that he owns a one-third interest in this reservation. His claim was opposed by Stephens Production Co., which asserted rights to certain portions of the mineral estate through a mineral lease executed by the Hixons’ successors in interest. Stephens filed suit for declaratory judgment against Paul and four other defendants, asking the trial court to declare that the disputed reservation in the deed affected only a portion of the conveyed land, known as Lot 288. Paul counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that the reservation affected the entire property conveyed. The lessors of Stephens’ mineral lease filed a plea in intervention, seeking a declaration that the deed did not reserve any mineral interest in the land covered by their mineral lease with Stephens (the Closner Lots) and to establish their ownership of the mineral estate of the Closner Lots. Stephens, Paul and the intervenors each filed summary judgment motions. Before the trial court ruled on their motion, the intervenors settled their claims with all defendants other than Paul, and all claims between these defendants, the intervenors and Stephens were dismissed with prejudice. The trial court then entered a final summary judgment for Stephens and the intervenors against Paul, who appeals. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. Paul contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law by interpreting the reservation clause to apply only to Lot 288. The reservation speaks of its subject as a tract. Use of this singular noun indicates that the reservation applies only to Lot 288 and not to the other lots. Nevertheless, the first clause of the grant also speaks of a “lot, tract or piece or parcel of land,” even though the deed conveys eight different lots. Thus, the reservation’s use of the singular noun tract to describe its subject is consistent with the deed’s use of the singular noun tract to describe multiple lots and, in fact, the entire conveyance. The court therefore finds that no single reasonable meaning clearly emerges from the language of the instrument. Because the deed is ambiguous, the court concludes that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment based on its interpretation of the deed. The court holds that a jury should hear evidence and determine the parties’ intent. Paul next contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for summary judgment based on estoppel by deed. Paul produced evidence that Kenneth R. Hixon and other subsequent interest holders executed multiple conveyances, as well as an oil, gas and mineral lease, acknowledging that the mineral reservation covered all land conveyed by the Deed, including the Closner Lots. The court finds that there is some evidence that the reservation extends to the Closner Lots, but it is inconsistent and therefore insufficient to eliminate all genuine issues of material fact. Accordingly, the court holds that Paul did not establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on his defense of estoppel by deed. Therefore, as it relates to the claims between Stephens, Paul and the intervenors, the court reverses the judgment of the trial court and remands the case for further proceedings. The remainder of the judgment, specifically, the dismissal with prejudice of the claims between Stephens, the other defendants and intervenors, has not been challenged and is therefore affirmed. OPINION:Garza, J.; Yanez, Castillo and Garza, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.