Hysaw v. Dawkins
483 S.W.3d 1
Tex.2016Background
- Testatrix Ethel Hysaw executed a 1947 will dividing three Texas tracts among her three children in fee simple but devising each child a "non-participating" royalty described as "an undivided one-third (1/3) of an undivided one-eighth (1/8)" of minerals produced from any of the lands.
- The will repeated the double-fraction language to each named child, clarified non-participation in bonuses and rentals, and contained a residual clause: if Ethel sold royalty in life, the children "shall each receive one-third of the remainder of the unsold royalty."
- Ethel made some inter vivos royalty conveyances before death; some descendants later obtained leases with royalties greater than the historical 1/8 (e.g., a 1/5 lease on Inez’s tract).
- Howard’s and Dorothy’s successors sued for a declaration that each devisee holds a floating 1/3 of whatever royalty is obtained (fraction of royalty); Inez’s successors argued the double fractions fix each devisee at 1/24 (1/3 × 1/8) on applicable tracts, leaving excess to the fee owner.
- Trial court held for floating 1/3; the court of appeals split (held some tracts fixed 1/24 and others floating); the Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held the will devised a floating 1/3 royalty to each child.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Inez’s successors) | Defendant's Argument (Howard’s/Dorothy’s successors) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double-fraction language (1/3 of 1/8) creates a fixed fractional royalty (1/24) or a floating royalty (1/3 of whatever lease royalty obtains) | Double fractions should be multiplied; the will unambiguously fixed each devisee at 1/24 for covered tracts | The will must be read holistically; double fractions and the residual clause show intent to divide royalties equally as a floating 1/3 | Held floating royalty: each devisee receives 1/3 of any royalty obtained (not a fixed 1/24) |
| Whether the residual clause (one-third of remainder of unsold royalty) implies equal sharing and therefore supports floating royalty | Not dispositive for all tracts; does not override clear double-fraction math | Residual clause evidences intent to equalize and treat children alike, showing testatrix meant 1/3 of actual royalty | Court relied on residual clause as strong evidence of intent to divide royalties equally |
| Whether courts may apply bright-line multiplication rule to double fractions | Advocates multiplication as plain meaning and certainty | Opposes mechanical rules; urges holistic construction to ascertain intent | Court rejects bright-line multiplication rule; emphasizes four-corners, harmonization, and intent-focused inquiry |
| Whether historical prevalence of 1/8 royalty or "estate misconception" controls interpretation | Historical 1/8 usage supports reading 1/8 as shorthand for landowner's royalty, thus supports floating royalty only in limited contexts | Historical usage does not override clear double-fraction wording which should be multiplied | Court allows historical context to inform but not control; here context confirms testatrix used 1/8 as shorthand and intended equal, floating shares |
Key Cases Cited
- Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1991) (holdings require construing mineral conveyances holistically; reject mechanical rules)
- Concord Oil Co. v. Pennzoil Expl. & Prod. Co., 966 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. 1998) (plurality) (rejects bright-line rules for differing-fraction conveyances; favor harmonization)
- Garrett v. Dils Co., 299 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. 1957) (useful precedent on interpreting double fractions in context)
- Harriss v. Ritter, 279 S.W.2d 845 (Tex. 1955) (construed multi-fraction reservation as fixed fraction where language plainly indicated it)
- Shriner's Hosp. for Crippled Children of Tex. v. Stahl, 610 S.W.2d 147 (Tex. 1980) (will-construction principle: ascertain intent from the instrument as a whole)