Barton Land Services, Inc. v. Seeco, Inc.
2013 Ark. 231
Ark.2013Background
- 1929 mineral deed from R.F. Thomas and Amy Thomas to J.S. Martin Trustee conveys an undivided interest and leaves the percentage blank.
- Amy Thomas, later a widow, conveyed surface of three tracts, excepting all minerals, to Owens and Stacks; minerals remained with Thomas heirs and others through subsequent transfers.
- SEECO filed an interpleader in 2011 to determine ownership of oil, gas, and minerals and sought to quiet title against multiple groups.
- Below, seven summary-judgment motions were heard; several groups were granted or denied relief with respect to mineral ownership and validity of related deeds.
- Circuit court held the 1929 deed conveyed 100% of the mineral interest to Martin and voided certain 2005 tax-deed transfers to the Lewises; limited-warrranty deeds were deemed void for tax-forfeitures.
- Appellants Barton Group, Ward Group, and Fayetteville Shale appealed challenging the 100% conveyance ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did 1929 deed convey 100% mineral interest to Martin? | Bartons argue blank in grantor clause voids conveyance; not a full transfer. | SEECO/Stanton/others contend deed unambiguously conveyed all minerals to Martin. | Yes; the deed conveyed 100% of the mineral interest to Martin. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patterson v. Miller, 154 Ark. 124, 241 S.W. 875 (1922) (Ark. 1922) (presumption that grantor conveys entire interest when not limited)
- Moody v. Walker, 3 Ark. 147 (1840) (Ark. 1840) (definition of fee simple estate)
- Griffith v. Ayer-Lord Tie Co., 109 Ark. 223, 159 S.W. 218 (1913) (Ark. 1913) (necessity of express words to transfer title)
- Jenkins v. Simmons, 241 Ark. 242, 407 S.W.2d 105 (1966) (Ark. 1966) (interpretation of deeds; whole-context approach)
- Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Olson, 222 Ark. 828, 262 S.W.2d 882 (1953) (Ark. 1953) (harmonizing deed language with four-corners rule)
- Asbury Automotive Used Car Ctr. v. Brosh, 2009 Ark. 111, 314 S.W.3d 275 (Ark. 2009) (gathering parties' intent from whole contract)
- Thackston v. Farm Bureau Lumber Corp., 212 Ark. 47, 204 S.W.2d 897 (1947) (Ark. 1947) (deed proof cannot be varied by parol evidence)
- Higginbottom v. Higginbottom, 247 Ark. 694, 447 S.W.2d 149 (1969) (Ark. 1969) (parol evidence and deed clarity rule)
- W.T. Carter & Brothers v. Ewers, 133 Tex. 616, 131 S.W.2d 86 (1939) (Tex. 1939) (void for uncertainty; inapplicable to blank-form deed here)