Co-author Rusty TuckerIn a suit to foreclose a property tax lien, if the taxing authority does not exercise due diligence to support service of citation by a method other than by personal service can the owners, as a matter of due process, raise that defect for the first time after expiration of the statute of limitations? Heidelberg v. DOH Oil Company says “no”.
Co-author Rusty Tucker
Estate of Trickett was a dispute over heirship of Claralyn Trickett, possibly the wife of Robert Bowerman (who must have forgotten to divorce his previous wife).
The descendents of Claralyn brought a quiet title action and an heirship proceeding against the heirs of Robert, who claimed an interest in his estate by virtue of his marriage to Claralyn. The trial court abated the quiet title suit while the parties fought over Claralyn’s heirship,
The result
The court agreed with the descendents of Robert that the general four year statute of limitations applied and that Claralyn’s heirs’ cause of action began to accrue in 1972 when she died. The claim was barred by limitations because they did not file suit until 2015, 42 years after she died and 38 years too late.
This was not an action to recover real property. If it were, the cause of action would not have been barred by limitations. The real property issue was not presently before the court. The only requested relief was to have the court declare the identity of Claralyn’s heirs and the respective shares and interest of each in her estate.
Continue Reading Limitations Bars an Heirship Proceeding
Co-author Robbie S. MorrisChanneling Winston Churchill, Gray Reed lawyer Robbie Morris urges caution for document writers and the clients who hire them: Drafting a deed is not, as many view it, a clerical undertaking. Nothing can take the place of a diligent inquiry (by all parties and their counsel) into how the grantor derived
Real author Paul YaleYou’re in for a treat today; a report from my Gray Reed partner Paul Yale on the Texas Supreme Court decision, Yowell v. Granite Operating et al, dealing with anti-washout clauses in assignments of overrides and that bane of all first year law students, the Rule Against Perpetuities. The Court,
Let’s begin with a quiz:
What is a “Labor” ? Assuming you met one face to face, how big is would you expect it to be?*
From Great Western. Drilling, Ltd. v. Pathfinder Oil & Gas, Inc. we learn that if you want one agreement to be conditioned on execution of another one, you’d better say so … in writing … in the first one. Texas courts look for ways to avoid conditions precedent.
Continue Reading Offer to Acquire Leases Could Not be Conditioned on a JOA
Co-author Kelley Clark MorrisGeary v. Two Bow Ranch Limited Partnership* is an example of the havoc an unusual contract provision can create.
In 1981, Geary and other Grantors executed a warranty deed conveying 2,614 acres (let’s call it the Property) in Bandera County, Texas, to Meader, Two Bow’s predecessor. The Grantors reserved an undivided one-half mineral interest, and conveyed one-half. The deed conveyed to Meader the ”executory rights” to its minerals and reserved the same to Grantors over their half. The deed included this “Provisional Authority” language:
“Grantee may control the executory rights pertaining to the minerals provided the Grantors and Grantee share equally in any and all proceeds related thereto.”
Continue Reading “Provisional Authority” to Control Executive Rights Not Assignable
Co-author Rusty TuckerContract construction cases are fact-specific, but one can take lessons of general application from all of them. Here are the takeaways from Jones Energy, Inc. v. Pima Oil & Gas, L.L.C.,
Caveat: If this analysis doesn’t make total sense (or, God forbid, makes no sense at all), it’s because the agreements are complicated and we don’t have the space to dive into them in detail. Focus on the takeaways.
Continue Reading Lessons from an Override Assignment
WTX Fund, LLC v. Brown, is Texas mineral deed construction case.
In the same year as that crazy thing happened at Coogan’s Bluff, the Roaches executed a Mineral Conveyance to the Holts. Let’s review the transaction and ask ourselves why – or if – there had to be so many “intentions” clauses in addition to
Here we continue our discussion of the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in Piranha Partners et al. v. Joe B. Neuhoff et al. determining that an assignment of an overriding royalty in minerals unambiguously conveyed the override in production under an entire lease. The Court concluded that circumstances surrounding the transaction didn’t matter. Here was the
The question for the Texas Supreme Court in Piranha Partners et al. v. Joe B. Neuhoff et al. was whether an assignment of an overriding royalty in minerals conveyed the override only in production from the identified well (the B #1-28), in production from any well drilled on the identified land (NW/4, Section 28)