Enerlex, Inc. v. Glenn Hegar, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
03-18-00238-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 7, 2019Background
- Enerlex purchased mineral interests from William Wilson via mineral deeds (2011, 2013) and claimed assignment of past royalties.
- The Texas Comptroller held $4,652.91 in unclaimed royalty payments for royalties paid 2001–2010 and denied Enerlex’s claim.
- Comptroller concluded Enerlex showed transfer of mineral interests but not transfer of proceeds existing before the deed.
- Enerlex sued, seeking declaration it was entitled to the funds; both parties moved for summary judgment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the Comptroller; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Enerlex) | Defendant's Argument (Comptroller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an assignee of a reported owner can claim unclaimed property from the Comptroller | Enerlex contends Wilson assigned his rights to past unclaimed royalties to Enerlex, so Enerlex can recover from the Comptroller | The Comptroller argues § 74.501(e) bars payment to an assignee of the reported owner; only the reported owner may be paid | Court: § 74.501(e) unambiguously bars paying an assignee; funds must be paid to the reported owner (Wilson) |
| Whether purchaser-for-value provisions (§ 75.002) entitle Enerlex to the already-paid royalties held by the State | Enerlex asserts § 75.002 supports its right as purchaser of mineral proceeds | Comptroller replies the case involves royalties already paid and reported as unclaimed, not future obligations to pay | Court: § 75.002 does not apply to already-paid unclaimed royalties; Enerlex may receive future royalties but not the funds held for Wilson |
| Whether extrinsic evidence or parties’ intent can alter the statutory payment rule | Enerlex urges legislative history and transaction intent to allow payment to assignee | Comptroller relies on plain statutory text prohibiting payment to assignees | Court: Statute is clear; cannot resort to extrinsic aids; intentions do not change outcome |
| Whether Comptroller’s prior practice of paying assignees creates vested rights or constitutional violation | Enerlex argues longstanding Comptroller practice estops the State and creates vested expectations | Comptroller argues prior erroneous practice does not create vested rights and it may correct its interpretation | Court: No vested right; agency may change erroneous interpretation grounded in plain statutory language; no constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Colorado County v. Staff, 510 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. 2017) (statutory construction: give effect to legislature’s intent; plain text controls)
- City of Round Rock v. Rodriguez, 399 S.W.3d 130 (Tex. 2013) (do not resort to extrinsic aids when statute is unambiguous)
- Southwest Royalties, Inc. v. Hegar, 500 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. 2016) (undefined statutory terms given ordinary meaning consistent with context)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Structured Asset Funding, LLC, 501 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (assignee defined as transferee of rights)
- Great–West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Texas Att’y Gen. Child Support Div., 331 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (discussing assignments of future installment payments)
- Grocers Supply Co. v. Sharp, 978 S.W.2d 638 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998) (agency change in interpretation does not create vested rights)
- In re Phillips, 496 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. 2016) (assignee must look to contract with property owner where statutory process precludes recovery)
- Railroad Comm’n of Tex. v. Texas Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water, 336 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2011) (agency interpretations entitled to consideration but must not conflict with statute)