403 S.W.3d 1
Tex. App.2012Background
- Dispute over interpretation and construction of Lumpkin’s conveyance to Cramems Realty (the Cramerus Deed) and whether it reserved the 40-foot railroad right-of-way.
- Main Tract and Panhandle Tract (together ~5.757 acres) separated by the right-of-way; the right-of-way runs north-south between them.
- Lumpkin conveyed 18.697 acres in 1955 by the Cramems Deed, noting the land conveyed was “LESS the following tract of land reserved for railroad right-of-way.”
- Boulanger argues the language excludes the right-of-way from the conveyance, claiming Lumpkin reserved it; Waste Management argues the right-of-way was conveyed with the land and only burdened by the easement.
- Trial court granted Waste Management’s no-evidence/traditional partial summary judgment on ownership; Boulanger appeals.
- Court withdraws prior opinion and resolves using clarified standards of deed interpretation and construction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can rules of construction be used without a pleading of ambiguity? | Boulanger: no; no extrinsic evidence or construction aids without ambiguity. | Waste Management: yes; rules of construction aid interpreting the deed even absent ambiguity. | Yes; rules of construction may be used without ambiguity finding. |
| What is the meaning of the Cramerus Deed’s ‘LESS’ in the conveyance? | Boulanger: ‘less’ excludes the right-of-way from the Main/Panhandle Tracts. | Waste Management: ‘less’ does not express reservation; conveys fee title subject to right-of-way. | ‘Less’ conveys the fee title to all described land, including the right-of-way; the right-of-way is not reserved. |
| Does the deed’s language create ambiguity requiring extrinsic evidence to decide ownership? | Boulanger: deed is unambiguous; extrinsic evidence cannot be considered. | Waste Management: canons of construction may be used to determine intent; may consider extrinsic evidence if appropriate. | Deed unambiguously conveys fee to all described land; extrinsic evidence not necessary to decide ownership. |
| Should the trial court have relied on extrinsic evidence or construction aids at summary judgment? | Boulanger: not appropriate absent ambiguity. | Waste Management: construction aids may be consulted to ascertain intent regardless of ambiguity. | Court properly granted summary judgment for Waste Management; no need to resolve ownership via extrinsic evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1991) (four-corners rule; interpret deed by its terms)
- CenterPoint Energy Houston Elec., L.L.P. v. Old TJC Co., 177 S.W.3d 425 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (ambiguity required before extrinsic evidence; canons of construction aid interpretation)
- J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. 2003) (ambiguity determination; interpretation is a matter of law)
- Buffalo Ranch Co., Ltd. v. Thomason, 727 S.W.2d 331 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987) (deed interpretation; effect of canons of construction)
- Cantley v. Gulf Prod. Co., 143 S.W.2d 912 (Tex. 1940) (presumption against reserving fee in a narrow strip absent clear language)
- Moore v. Rotello, 719 S.W.2d 372 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986) (save and except language did not reserve fee, conveyed subject to right-of-way)
- Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Kirkindall, 119 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1938) (canons of construction to discover intent of the grantor)
- Elder v. Anadarko E & P Co., 2011 WL 2713817 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2011) (note: WL cited; excluded from key-cases list)
- Moon Royalty, LLC v. Boldrick Partners, 244 S.W.3d 391 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2007) (two-step interpretation; distinction between rules of interpretation and canons of construction)