645 S.W.3d 299
Tex. App.2022Background
- In 1971 Lilly conveyed undivided 1/12 nonparticipating mineral interests to each of her children (including W.T. Aaron and Chester Little) by deeds reciting "Ten & no/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) cash in hand paid and other good and valuable consideration" and stating "This sale is made subject to any rights now existing to any lessee."
- W.T. was married to Lavon; Chester was married to Audra. Both W.T. and Chester later died intestate without children; their spouses subsequently died intestate, producing competing heirship claims (Fishers, Elams, S.C., and Appellant Glen D. Aaron II).
- Appellant filed an affidavit of death and heirship misrepresenting Lavon’s heirs and received royalty payments ($5,521.16) from Pioneer based on an amended division order; Pioneer interpleaded disputed royalties into the court registry and was dismissed.
- The Fishers, Elams, and S.C. moved for summary judgment asserting title to the disputed mineral interests (arguing the 1971 deeds were sales for consideration, making the interests community property that passed to spouses/heirs) and, as to the Fishers, a money-had-and-received claim for royalties paid to Appellant.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for appellees and discharged Pioneer; Appellant appealed, raising eight issues including (1) whether the 1971 deeds were gifts or sales, (2) sufficiency of the money-had-and-received proof, (3) whether S.C.’s affirmative claim survived Appellant’s nonsuit, and (4) whether Pioneer’s interpleader discharge was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Aaron) | Defendant's Argument (Appellees) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization of 1971 deeds: gift vs sale | Deeds were gifts; interests are separate property of grantees (so Appellant could inherit via his father’s succession and claims to other shares) | Deeds unambiguously recite sale language and consideration; therefore conveyances were sales for consideration and became community property of grantees and spouses | Deeds construed from four corners as sales for consideration; conveys became community property and passed to spouses/heirs — appellees win |
| Money had and received (royalties paid to Appellant) | Amount and timing of payments not sufficiently established by appellees' affidavit; creates fact issue | Pioneer business-records affidavit shows $5,521.16 paid to Appellant in reliance on false heirship affidavit and amended division order; appellees entitled to recovery | Fishers established entitlement to $5,521.16; Appellant failed to controvert the Pitts affidavit — summary judgment for Fishers affirmed |
| Effect of Appellant's nonsuit on S.C.'s motion for summary judgment | Appellant: his nonsuit extinguished the case before S.C. moved; S.C. had no affirmative claim pending | S.C.: he filed a pro se answer/affidavit before nonsuit asserting an independent affirmative claim to minerals and royalties; claim survived nonsuit | Court treats S.C.'s pro se filing as an answer asserting independent affirmative relief that survived nonsuit; S.C.'s summary judgment properly considered and granted |
| Pioneer interpleader discharge (did later affidavit amount to "reentry") | Trial court abused discretion discharging Pioneer because Pioneer later (via affidavit) participated and "re-entered" the case | Pioneer was a disinterested stakeholder who faced competing claims; later executing a business-records affidavit at appellees' request did not resurrect Pioneer as a party or waive interpleader discharge | No abuse of discretion: interpleader discharge was proper; Pioneer did not reenter as a party by executing a business-records affidavit |
Key Cases Cited
- Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1991) (construe unambiguous mineral deeds from the four corners; exclude parol evidence)
- J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. 2003) (ambiguity determination of instrument is a question of law)
- Johnson v. Driver, 198 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006) (recital of consideration in deed bars parol evidence to show deed was a gift)
- Plains Exploration & Production Co. v. Torch Energy Advisors Inc., 473 S.W.3d 296 (Tex. 2015) (money-had-and-received is equitable remedy to prevent unjust enrichment)
- University of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Blackmon, 195 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2006) (nonsuit does not prejudice adverse party's pending affirmative claims)
- State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 216 S.W.3d 799 (Tex. 2007) (interpleader under Rule 43 requires rival conflicting claims; stakeholder may interplead funds to avoid multiple liability)