627 S.W.3d 226
Tex.2021Background:
- Section 1 in Irion County was split by deeds (1927 and 1930) that described conflicting acreages and referenced a public road; surveys showed 154 disputed acres north of the road.
- Pilon leases (later held/operated by Ellison) covered the northwest tract; Samson leased and intended to drill in the southeast tract and obtained a title opinion noting ambiguities.
- In 2008 the adjacent mineral owners (Farmars and Richey) executed a recorded Boundary Stipulation placing the disputed 154 acres in the southeast tract; the stipulation stated an effective date of 1987.
- Samson’s landman sent a 2008 letter to Jamie Ellison enclosing the stipulation and asking him to "signify your acceptance" of the description; Jamie signed and returned the letter.
- Samson and successors drilled wells that Ellison later alleged trespassed on her leasehold; Ellison sued for trespass-to-try-title and related claims; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, the court of appeals reversed, and the Texas Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court held the boundary stipulation valid between the owners and that Ellison ratified the agreed boundary via the signed 2008 letter, reversing the court of appeals and reinstating summary judgment for defendants on title and related claims.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ellison) | Defendant's Argument (Concho/Operators) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2008 boundary stipulation | 1927 deed is unambiguous; stipulation is void because there was no ambiguity to correct | Adjacent owners may settle boundary disputes; stipulation is a valid agreement resolving a "question" between owners | Stipulation is valid as an agreement between owners; objective ambiguity not required (subjective doubt ok) |
| Whether Ellison ratified the stipulation by signing 2008 letter | Signature was limited/conditional, procured by misrepresentation, or forged; did not ratify | Jamie’s counter-signature accepted the stipulation’s description of his leasehold and thus ratified the boundary | Ratification established as a matter of law; letter manifested acceptance and ratified the stipulation |
| Availability of equitable defenses (ratification) in trespass-to-try-title | Equitable defenses like ratification (or abandonment) are unavailable in trespass-to-try-title | Equitable defenses are permitted; Rule 789 allows legal and equitable defenses to be offered | Equitable defenses (including ratification) are available and may defeat trespass-to-try-title claims |
| Effect of title ruling on remaining claims (conversion, division-order statute, damages) | If Ellison has title, remaining claims survive against operators and payor | If Ellison ratified and summary judgment on title is proper, related claims fail as a matter of law | Trial court correctly granted summary judgment on title; Ellison’s related claims fail; remand to court of appeals to address unresolved counterclaim issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2000) (defines ratification as adoption with knowledge of material facts)
- Wood v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 505 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. 2016) (void acts generally not susceptible to ratification)
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (summary-judgment evidence and inference standards)
- Gilbert Tex. Constr., L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 327 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2010) (cross-motions for summary judgment standard)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Marathon Oil Co., 152 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1941) (parties may fix a disputed line by agreement; requires doubt in the minds of the parties)
- Houston Oil Co. of Tex. v. Singleton, 44 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. 1931) (instrumental settlement of boundary disputes is binding on the parties)
- Levy v. Maddux, 16 S.W. 877 (Tex. 1891) (settlements of boundary disputes are favored and should not be disturbed)
- Rogers v. Ricane Enterprises, Inc., 772 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. 1989) (laches not a defense to trespass-to-try-title based on legal title)
- Rogers v. Ricane Enters., Inc., 884 S.W.2d 763 (Tex. 1994) (ratification findings must be supported by evidence)