Combs v. Sherman, 267 P.3d 150

Sellers, two sisters, jointly owned a 56-acre tract in Atoka County.
In 1998, they offered to sell to Rowton with a reservation: 3/4 of minerals retained by Sellers and 1/4 conveyed with the land.
Two identical joint tenancy warranty deeds were prepared, each conveying 1/4 of the sisters' interests and reserving 3/4 of their mineral interests.
Rowton and son purchased the property; later, Rowtons sold to Buyers in 1999, including the mineral interests.
In 2007, Sellers sold their mineral interests to Legacy Royalty; Buyers later leased.
Buyers filed (2009) suit claiming a 1/2 mineral interest; Sellers argued they conveyed only a 1/4.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What did the deeds convey regarding mineral interests?	Buyers: conveyed 1/2 total minerals via two 1/4 conveys.	Sellers: conveyed only 1/4 each, totaling 1/2 reserved by grantors; thus Buyers only got 1/4.	Buyers did not acquire 1/2; they acquired 1/4.
Does the Duhig estoppel doctrine apply to these deeds?	Deeds estop Sellers from claiming more than conveyed due to warranty.	No estoppel because language clearly reserved 3/4 and conveyed 1/4 of each interest; no prior reservation by another grantor.	Duhig estoppel not support Buyers' result; language controls.
How does joint tenancy ownership affect the conveyance?	Two equal co-owners each conveyed a quarter of their share, summing to half the minerals.	Joint tenancy means each owns an undivided half; each conveyed only 1/4 of her own half, not 1/2 of the whole.	Each sister conveyed 1/4 of her equal half; Buyers received 1/4 total.
Are cited cases dispositive to the outcome?	Duhig and Birmingham support Buyers' position.	Those authorities are distinguishable; the deeds here expressly reserved and conveyed, not merely implied.	Distinguishable; not controlling; the result favors Sellers.

Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co., 144 S.W.2d 878 (Texas Supreme Court, 1940) (estoppel prevents grantor from asserting title to reserved minerals when previously conveyed)
Birmingham v. McCoy, 358 P.2d 824 (Okla. 1960) (where grantor conveys with reservation, estoppel applies; distinguishes Murphy)
Murphy v. Athans, 265 P.2d 461 (Okla. 1953) (intent of reservation vs. warranty; supports estoppel principle)
Young v. Vermillion, 992 P.2d 917 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999) (distinguishes Duhig in context of conveyances with prior reservations)
Shackelton v. Sherrard, 385 P.2d 898 (Okla. 1963) (defines joint tenancy concepts relevant to shares and conveyance)
In re Estate of Metz, 256 P.3d 45 (Okla. 2011) (explains joint ownership and coextensive interests)
Price v. Price, 573 P.2d 251 (Okla. 1977) (equitable review standard in quiet-title actions)