History
  • No items yet
midpage
358 S.W.3d 834
Tex. App.
2012

Try one of our plugins.

Chat with this case or research any legal issue with our plugins for Claude, ChatGPT, or Perplexity.

ClaudeChatGPT
Read the full case

Background

  • In 1961, G.P. Wood conveyed 191.12 acres in Rusk County subject to a 1953 oil and gas lease; the deed reserved an undivided 1/8 of oil and gas royalties.
  • The deed’s reservation stated the grantor would receive 1/8 of all royalties and 1/8 of the royalties provided for in any future leases, with a floor of at least 1/8 of the usual 1/8 royalty (i.e., a minimum floor).
  • The 1953 lease expired; Welch later signed 1976 and 1981 leases with a 3/16 royalty, increasing the royalty in effect.
  • In 1981, Welch signed a division order showing Coghill and Welch would receive 1/8 of the 3/16 royalty.
  • In 2004, the Griffiths purchased the property and began receiving 1/8 of the 3/16 royalty, with Coghill also receiving that same amount.
  • By 2007, Griffiths contended Coghill’s and their interests were not equal, arguing Coghill had only 1/8 of 1/8 and sought two 1/64 interests; Coghill sought to enforce a broader fraction of royalty.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the 1961 deed reserved a fraction of royalty or a fractional royalty. Coghill: reserve is a fractional royalty (1/8 of 1/8 floor). Griffiths: reserve is a fixed 1/64 royalty (fractional) regardless of future leases. Coghill’s construction; reservation is a fraction of royalty (1/8 of royalty) in future leases.
Whether the language yields a floor but not a fixed 1/64 in future leases. Coghill: language sets a floor guaranteeing at least 1/64 of all royalties, not a fixed 1/64. Griffiths: language caps the grantor at 1/64 as a fixed fraction. Deed language creates a floor, not a fixed 1/64; future leases may yield more than 1/64.
Whether attorney’s fees should be remanded for reconsideration. Coghill prevailed on appeal and seeks remand to reconsider fees. Griffiths oppose remand; discretionary award not mandatory. No remand; discretionary denial of fees sustained.

Key Cases Cited

  • Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1991) (four-corners rule; harmonize all provisions of deed)
  • Range Res. Corp., 266 S.W.3d 490 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008) (minimum royalty clause creates floor, not fixed fraction)
  • Schlittler v. Smith, 101 S.W.2d 543 (Tex. 1937) (similar provision construed as a fraction of royalty)
  • Garza v. Prolithic Energy Co., L.P., 195 S.W.3d 137 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006) (minimum royalty language contemplates larger future leases)
  • Advanced Polymer Scis., Inc. v. Sava Gumarska, 128 S.W.3d 304 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004) (remand possible for attorney’s fees in declaratory actions)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Coghill v. Griffith
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Jan 18, 2012
Citations: 358 S.W.3d 834; 175 Oil & Gas Rep. 962; 2012 WL 204208; 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 376; No. 12-10-00346-CV
Docket Number: No. 12-10-00346-CV
Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.
Log In
    Coghill v. Griffith, 358 S.W.3d 834