Way back in 2023 it was predicted that the Supreme Court of Texas’ decision in Van Dyke v. Navigator would spawn years of litigation. How right the predictions were!
Double-Fraction Royalty Disputes – the Continuing Saga Continues …
Another Double-Fraction Mineral Deed: Rebutting the Presumption and the Presumed-Grant Doctrine
Several weeks ago the Supreme Court of Texas addressed the double-fraction mineral conveyance, reinforcing the “Van Dyke presumption” but not addressing how the presumption could be rebutted or the presumed-grant doctrine. Last week’s Clifton v. Johnson addresses both.
The deed and the suit
The typewritten title to a “Mineral Deed” was crossed out and “Royalty Deed”
Will the Fixed or Floating Suits Ever End?
Rhetorical Question: When will Texas be done with fixed/floating royalty cases such as Johnson et al v. Clifton et al?
Rhetorical Answer: When scriveners of deeds that are open to eight conceivably plausible meanings have completed their remedial scrivening courses.
How did it happen?
In 1951 Young and others conveyed to Clifton and others
Another Double-Fraction Texas Deed Case
- A 1926 mineral lease from the Sesslers to Campbell.
- A 1926 “Royalty Deed” from Sesslers to Haun.
- A 1939 Warranty
Fixed-or-Floating NPRI Principles Applied to Texas Mineral Reservation
Co-author Rusty Tucker
In Susan Davis Van Dyke et al. v. The Navigator Group. et al., the Eastland court of appeals applied recent fixed-versus-floating NPRI principles to a double-fraction mineral interest reservation.
In a 1924 Deed Mulkey conveyed property to White and Tom and reserved “one-half of one-eighth of all minerals …”
Davis (heirs and assigns of Mulkey) claimed ownership of half of the minerals pursuant to the reservation. Navigator (heirs and assigns of White and Tom) claimed that Davis only owns 1/16th and that Navigator owns the rest. Ruling on dueling motions for summary judgment, the trial court agreed with Navigator and declared, among other things, that the Deed was unambiguous and that the Mulkeys reserved 1/16th of the minerals (1/2 of 1/8th) and conveyed 15/16ths to White and Tom.
Davis asserted claims under the estate misconception theory and the presumed grant doctrine and asserted estoppel defenses. This post can’t do justice to the court’s deep dive into these theories. See this long form summary for more detail.
Continue Reading Fixed-or-Floating NPRI Principles Applied to Texas Mineral Reservation