123 So. 3d 184
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Franklin owned property in DeSoto Parish; mineral rights reserved when transferred to the Franklin Educational Trust in 2000.
- Arbuckles offered to buy the property in 2000–2001; minerals not discussed in negotiations.
- To cure trust-formality concerns, Adoption and Ratification and Arbuckle Deed were executed in 2001, with trust as grantor and Franklin as individual grantor; deeds signed in Massachusetts/Florida.
- In 2008, Camterra leased minerals to Petrohawk, which later acquired the lease; Franklin transferred mineral rights to Claudia Franklin later that year.
- Claudia Franklin filed suit in January 2009 seeking ownership of mineral rights and related relief; trial court granted summary judgment for defendants in 2012; Claudia and Franklin intervened or appealed; the appellate court affirmed in 2012 and denied rehearing, with a dissent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Arbuckle Deed clearly transferred mineral rights | Franklin contends the deed reserved minerals. | Arbuckles contend the deed transferred both surface and minerals. | Deed language was clear; no mineral reservation implied beyond four corners. |
| Whether extrinsic evidence could alter a clear deed | Plaintiffs argue parol evidence may show intent to reserve minerals. | When language is clear, extrinsic evidence cannot alter it. | Extrinsic evidence cannot contradict a clear deed; four-corners rule applies. |
| Whether error vitiates consent and supports rescission/reformation | Franklin alleges mutual/unilateral error affected consent to transfer minerals. | No basis to grant rescission given the record and conduct. | Court rejects rescission based on error; the deed’s terms control. |
| Effect of recordation on third-party rights under Article 3342 | Recordation should protect third parties from conflicting claims. | Recordation provisions shield third parties when instrument terms are clear. | Arbuckle Deed not ambiguous; Article 3342 protects third-party rights accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Argonaut Great Cent. Ins. Co. v. Hammett, 13 So.3d 1209 (La.App.2d Cir. 2009) (appellate de novo review of summary judgments; evidence must be construed in opponent’s favor)
- Dogal v. Pickett, 37 So.3d 1145 (La.App.2d Cir. 2010) (ambiguous deed interpretation; four-corners rule applied to disclosure of intent)
- Horton v. Mobley, ? So.2d ? (La.App.2d Cir. 1991) (parol evidence not allowed when deed language clear; rely on instrument text)
- Reynaud v. Bullock, 196 So. 29 (La.1940) (established rule on error in contract formation; vitiates consent when cause is essential)
- Peironnet v. Matador Resources Co., 103 So.3d 445 (La.App.2d Cir. 2013) (mutual/unilateral error; later supreme court decision discussed; used to compare contractual negligence/erro)