Baker's Campground, Inc., Kelli Graves, and Kourtnie Graves v. Anthony L. McCalla and Cheryl A. McCalla
416 S.W.3d 477
Tex. App.2012Background
- Graves filed suit against McCalla seeking removal of a recorded Notice of Settlement from Johnson County deed records, asserting cloud on title based on a 2003 Release and Settlement Agreement.
- The 380-acre Brazos River property originated with a 99-year Glazier lease to the Bakers, under which the McCallas held a two-acre sub-lease with a first-option-to-purchase
- Walt Baker and McCallas prepared a Release and Settlement Agreement in 2003; Baker handwrote changes to the draft and signed beneath those handwritten provisions, not on the typed signature line
- In 2008 the trial court granted partial summary judgment for the McCallas on the validity/enforceability of the 2003 Release and Settlement Agreement; in 2011 the court entered final judgment granting specific performance and vesting title in the McCallas with damages and attorney’s fees awarded
- Graves challenged both the partial summary judgment and the final judgment on the grounds of lack of clear terms and ambiguity in the settlement, prompting appellate review
- The court reversed and remanded, concluding the handwritten provisions created ambiguity and that summary judgment on enforceability was improper
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction proper in probate/concurrent courts | Graves—trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction | McCallas—probate-court jurisdiction coexists with district court in related matters | Subject-matter jurisdiction proper and concurrent; no reversible error |
| Enforceability of the 2003 Release and Settlement Agreement | Agreement is unenforceable due to ambiguity and the notion of an “agreement to agree” | Agreement should be enforceable as the parties reached a settlement | Ambiguity; summary judgment improper; reversed and remanded for factual interpretation of terms |
| Effect of handwritten provisions on contract clarity | Handwritten edits render the instrument ambiguous | Handwritten provisions were part of the agreement | Ambiguity rooted in handwritten provisions; summary-judgment error; remand |
| Impact of settlement on prior jury verdict/option to purchase | Settlement alters or waives the option/related judgment | Settlement intended to memorialize agreement and avoid further court proceedings | Not necessary to resolve beyond ambiguity; remand for proper resolution of terms |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Puig, 351 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. 2011) (probate-court jurisdiction over estates and related matters; controlling issue analysis)
- Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1983) (contract ambiguity determined as a matter of law; ambiguity defeats summary judgment)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (summary judgment standard: review evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (summary judgment standard; burden on movant to show no genuine fact issue)
- Ski River Dev., Inc. v. McCalla, 167 S.W.3d 121 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005) (precedent on option validity and settlement context (appeal))