BP America Production Co. v. Marshall, 342 S.W.3d 59

BP obtained oil and gas leases on Slator Ranch from multiple mineral owners, including Marshalls and Vaquillas, with a sixty-day savings clause.
BP drilled J.O. Walker No. 1 near lease expiry; continued operations after expiration to keep leases alive, per letter documenting ongoing efforts.
BP abandoned J.O. Walker No. 1 in 1981; Sanchez-O'Brien later operated on the lease and produced productively beginning in 1981.
Wagner Oil later acquired BP’s interest through assignments, began producing, and paid royalties to Vaquillas for many years.
Vaquillas and Marshalls later claimed lease terminations and sought title/claims; Marshalls alleged BP fraud concealed lapse of good-faith operations.
Trial court awarded Marshalls fraud relief and Wagner title to Vaquillas’ lease; court of appeals partially affirmed, then Texas Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did discovery rule extend limitations for fraud claims?	Marshalls relied on discovery rule due to inherent undiscoverability.	Discovery rule does not apply; injury was discoverable with reasonable diligence.	Discovery rule did not apply; not inherently undiscoverable.
Did fraudulent concealment toll limitations period?	BP concealed cessation of good-faith operations and key facts delaying discovery.	Marshalls failed to show reasonable reliance; public records revealed facts.	Fraudulent concealment could toll only until discovery with reasonable diligence; here not proven.
Did Wagner acquire Vaquillas’ lease by adverse possession between cotenants?	Wagner’s conduct indicated exclusive ownership, ouster of cotenant required.	Payments of royalties to Vaquillas compatible with cotenancy; not unmistakably hostile.	Wagner's royalty payments and actions constituted unmistakable hostility; title acquired.
When did Vaquillas’ adverse-possession claim accrue?	Accrual tied to BP fraud discovery date (2000).	Accrual tied to when Wagner began adverse possession in 1981.	Accrual occurred at start of possession; 2000 discovery not needed for accrual.

Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. 1996) (discovery rule limits and timing of accrual)
Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2001) (discovery rule applicability to royalty claims)
HECI Exploration Co. v. Neel, 982 S.W.2d 881 (Tex. 1998) (public-records as sources of information; inherently undiscoverable injuries)
S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996) (distinction between discovery rule and general tolling)
Kerlin v. Sauceda, 263 S.W.3d 920 (Tex. 2008) (fraudulent concealment tolls limitations when fraud discovered)
Earle v. Ratliff, 998 S.W.2d 882 (Tex. 1999) (fraudulent concealment burden to show actual concealment)
Weaver v. Witt, 561 S.W.2d 792 (Tex. 1977) (fraudulent concealment doctrine basics)
Pool, Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v., 124 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. 2003) (adverse possession between cotenants and notice standards)
Tran v. Macha, 213 S.W.3d 913 (Tex. 2007) (non-adverse use and notice requirements for cotenants)
Rhodes v. Cahill, 802 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1990) (ouster standard for cotenants and adverse possession)
Cox v. Davison, 397 S.W.2d 200 (Tex. 1965) (unleased cotenant rights and value of minerals)
Byrom v. Pendley, 717 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. 1986) (cotenant adverse-possession rights and accounting)
Todd v. Bruner, 365 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. 1963) (ouster requires unmistakable hostile acts by cotenant)
Calfee v. Duke, 544 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1976) (adverse possession intent; hostility vs. intent to dispossess)