Duvall v. Carr-Pool
2016 Ark. App. 611
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Carr-Pool (trustee of the TRV Irrevocable Trust) sued to quiet title to mineral rights in a 30-acre Conway County parcel; Duvall owned the surface.
- Chain of title: 1967 deed reserved minerals to Mayne and Matilda Hawkins; 1970 and 1974 deeds involved conveyances and a 1974 warranty deed to Duvall containing the clause "it being understood that all oil, gas, and other minerals ... have been previously reserved or conveyed."
- Hawkins successors repeatedly executed oil-and-gas leases (1981, 1988, 1994, 2005); royalties were paid until XTO suspended payments in 2012 and sought curative title work.
- Duvall did not lease or otherwise assert control over the minerals from 1974 until contacted in 2012; he testified he thought the 1974 deed reserved the minerals.
- Trial court quieted title to minerals in Carr-Pool, finding adverse possession and defects in the 1974 reservation; the Court of Appeals affirms on a different basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carr-Pool acquired mineral title by adverse possession | Carr-Pool: predecessors exercised exclusive control via leases and royalty receipts, supporting adverse possession | Duvall: he never consented; mineral ownership was reserved and adverse possession requires actual invasion of minerals | Rejected — adverse-possession theory cannot support mineral title here because actual invasion (wells/mines) for statutory period was not shown |
| Validity of the 1974 deed language as a reservation of minerals | Carr-Pool: 1974 deed language evinces intent to reserve minerals in the Hawkinses and their successors | Duvall: argued language was ambiguous or ineffective to reserve minerals | Held — Court of Appeals (de novo) finds the 1974 deed validly reserved mineral rights in the Hawkinses; quiet title for Carr-Pool affirmed on this basis |
| Effect of predecessor dower rights on mineral ownership | Carr-Pool: dower does not defeat the clear reservation of minerals in the deed chain | Duvall: dower/incidents of title might affect whether minerals were reserved or merged | Moot — appellate resolution on deed construction made dower issue unnecessary to decide |
| Whether the trial court’s alternate reasoning can be upheld | Carr-Pool: trial court reached correct result; appellate court may affirm on any correct basis | Duvall: trial court erred in applying adverse possession and dower analysis | Held — appellate court may affirm on a different, correct legal ground (valid reservation) despite trial court’s adverse-possession finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Scott, 285 Ark. 102, 685 S.W.2d 160 (1985) (adverse possession of surface does not divest separated mineral owner absent actual invasion)
- Peterson v. Simpson, 286 Ark. 177, 690 S.W.2d 720 (1985) (reiterating that minerals require actual working for adverse-possession claim)
- Barton Land Svcs., Inc. v. SEECO, Inc., 428 S.W.3d 430 (2013) (Ark.) (deed-construction principles: ascertain grantor intent from the instrument)
- Gibson v. Pickett, 256 Ark. 1035, 512 S.W.2d 532 (1974) (deed interpretation and harmonizing all parts of the instrument)