Doris Virginia McGregor Stribling, Martha Lee McGregor, and Frank Bobbitt McGregor, Jr. v. Millican Dpc Partners, Lp, and Peach Creek Partners, Ltd.
458 S.W.3d 17
Tex.2015Background
- Millican and the McGregors dispute ownership of a 34.28-acre tract (the "Tract") in Brazos County; Millican claims record title while a longstanding fence favors the McGregors.
- Trial court found Millican did not have record title and granted summary judgment for the McGregors; court of appeals reversed as to record title and remanded for adverse-possession issues.
- Central question: whether a 1973 deed conveyed the 34.28-acre Tract that had been included in a 1945 deed in Millican’s chain of title.
- The 1973 deed described the First Tract in two ways: (1) a general description listing nine parcels (including the prior 202-acre Prescott tract that contained the Tract), and (2) a metes-and-bounds description that—unambiguously—did not include the 34.28-acre Tract but described an area of about 1,167 acres.
- The deed thus contained direct inconsistency: the general description appeared to include the 34.28-acre parcel by reference to the 1945 deed, while the metes-and-bounds description excluded it; parties agree the deed is unambiguous.
- The Supreme Court of Texas concluded the metes-and-bounds description controls, reversed the court of appeals, and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McGregors) | Defendant's Argument (Millican) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conflicting metes-and-bounds description or a general description referencing a prior deed controls | Specific metes-and-bounds controls and excludes the 34.28-acre Tract | The general description (incorporating the 1945 deed and calling for a 202-acre tract) should control and include the Tract | Metes-and-bounds controls; the 34.28-acre Tract was not conveyed by the 1973 deed |
| Whether reference to a prior deed can override a clear metes-and-bounds description | Reference to prior deed does not prevail when it conflicts with clear metes-and-bounds | Reference to prior deed demonstrates intent to convey the larger prior parcel | Reference to prior deed cannot overcome an unambiguous, directly contrary metes-and-bounds description |
| Whether the preference for conveying the greater estate defeats a clear specific description | Preference for greater estate does not override an unambiguous specific description | The deed should be construed to convey the greatest estate its terms permit | Preference for greater estate does not prevail over clear specific metes-and-bounds |
| Whether the metes-and-bounds here are "defective or doubtful" such that the general description should be used | Metes-and-bounds are not defective; they are clear and consistent with acreage shown by survey | The general description can be harmonized to show conveyance of the 34.28-acre Tract | Metes-and-bounds are not defective or doubtful; they control and cannot be harmonized to include the Tract |
Key Cases Cited
- Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1991) (unambiguous deed construction and discerning intent from entire instrument)
- U.S. Enters., Inc. v. Dauley, 535 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1976) (specific provisions control over general expressions)
- Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. Hart, 340 S.W.2d 775 (Tex. 1960) (where metes-and-bounds and general description conflict, specific description controls)
- Sun Oil Co. v. Burns, 84 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. 1935) (use of general description to aid ambiguous specific description)
- Cullers v. Platt, 16 S.W. 1003 (Tex. 1891) (specific metes-and-bounds govern over broader general description)
- Tex. Pac. Coal & Oil Co. v. Masterson, 334 S.W.2d 436 (Tex. 1960) (acreage calls are unreliable; metes-and-bounds prevail)
- Ford v. McRae, 96 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1936) (circumstances may require general description to control when specific is defective)
- Gulf Production Co. v. Spear, 84 S.W.2d 452 (Tex. 1935) (look to general description when metes-and-bounds are incomplete or incorrect)