Consolidated Property Interests, LLC v. Penny Payne
12-15-00105-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 10, 2015Background
- Consolidated Property Interests, LLC sued to quiet title to mineral interests on ~620 acres; Jerry and Penny Payne counterclaimed to remove a cloud on title to a 1/2 mineral interest. The trial court ruled for the Paynes; this is appellee's brief on appeal.
- Key documentary history: chain of deeds and leases from early 1900s (notably a 1931 oil & gas lease to Sun Oil and a March 12, 1931 mineral deed conveying an undivided one-half of certain royalties/minerals to J.O. Payne, Jr. and Frances Payne Casey).
- Appellee concedes Texas law presumes property conveyed to a married person is community property and cannot fully rebut that presumption with clear and convincing evidence for the original 1904–1916 transfers.
- Appellee's central argument pivots to interpretation of the 1931 instrument: its recital expressly allocates one-half of royalties/rentals to the grantees and contemplates the grantors retaining the other one-half, supporting that grantors continued to own one-half of the minerals.
- Historical conduct (1938 leases by the children each of 1/4 interest; absence of a mineral listing in Frances Casey’s probate inventory) and a 2008 Chesapeake lease bonus equal to one-half of 492 acres are offered to corroborate the interpretation that the grantors retained one-half of the minerals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who owns the mineral interests after the 1931 conveyance | Consolidated: 1931 deed conveyed all minerals to the grantees; grantors held none | Paynes: 1931 recital shows grantees received one-half of royalties/minerals; grantors retained the other one-half | Trial court awarded Paynes; appellee urges affirmance (grantees owned 1/2, grantors 1/2) |
| Effect of community-property presumption from deeds to married grantees | Consolidated: presumption supports community ownership that undermines Paynes' title | Paynes: concedes presumption but argues deed recitals and subsequent conduct demonstrate parties treated interests as split 1/2 | Appellee concedes presumption not rebutted in all respects, but asserts deed construction controls re: 1931 instrument; trial court resolved in favor of Paynes |
| Reliance on extrinsic conduct (leases, probate inventory, 2008 bonus) to interpret title | Consolidated: later leases/bonuses not dispositive; earlier lease terms could explain limited leasing | Paynes: consistent historical treatment, leases by children of 1/4 each, probate omissions, and 2008 bonus support retained 1/2 by grantors | Trial court credited Paynes' interpretation; appellee argues those facts support affirmance |
| Award of declaratory-judgment attorney's fees | Consolidated: seeks recovery of attorney's fees on appeal | Paynes: only trial court has discretion to award such fees and none were awarded | Trial court awarded no attorney fees; appellee argues no basis to reverse on fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Hardie, 22 S.W. 399 (Tex. 1893) (recitals in a deed can be conclusive between parties and give rise to estoppel by deed)
- Henderson v. Book, 128 S.W.2d 117 (Tex. Civ. App. 1939) (recitals in deeds bind parties and those claiming under them)
- Greene v. White, 153 S.W.2d 575 (Tex. 1941) (grantee who accepts a deed is bound by its recitals and reservations; recitals can define the parties' interests)
- Chandler v. Hartt, 467 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. Civ. App. 1971) (acceptance of a deed binds a grantee to recitals even if grantee did not sign)
- Westland Oil Dev. Corp. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 637 S.W.2d 903 (Tex. 1982) (a purchaser is bound by recitals, references, and reservations in instruments that form essential links in the chain of title)