Kenneth Hahn v. William Paul Gips, Lucille Fay Gips and Conoco Phillips Company
13-16-00336-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Dispute over ownership of mineral interests in a 74.15-acre tract in DeWitt County after a series of deeds and partitions among siblings Kenneth, George, Charles, and Doris Hahn.
- Before August 23, 2002: surface owned as undivided halves by Kenneth and George; mineral estate held in equal undivided one-fourth shares by Kenneth, George, Charles, and Doris.
- August 23, 2002: Kenneth and George executed partition deeds dividing the 74.15 acres into two 37.07-acre tracts (Tract A to Kenneth, Tract B to George); deeds recited conveyances without explicit mineral reservations.
- December 3, 2002: Kenneth sold Tract A to the Gipses reserving an undivided one-half non‑participating interest in the royalty he then owned (described as one-half of his one‑fourth = one‑eighth) for a 15‑year term.
- 2010–2012: oil and gas leases and division orders issued; Conoco sought stipulation of interests in 2011, and Kenneth later sued the Gipses and Conoco alleging he retained a one‑fourth mineral interest in Tract B and a one‑eighth royalty on Tract A.
- Trial court granted the Gipses’ traditional summary judgment concluding the 2002 partition deeds conveyed mineral interests and that the Gips deed left Kenneth only a floating one‑eighth royalty; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hahn) | Defendant's Argument (Gips) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of 2002 partition deeds on mineral estate | Partition deeds only divided surface; did not transfer mineral interests because not all cotenants joined | Deeds were unambiguous conveyances that transferred grantors’ mineral interests to each other | Partition deeds did not affect mineral estate; they conveyed only surface interests (reversed trial court on this issue) |
| Construction of Kenneth's deed to Gips (reservation) | Deed reserved a fixed one‑eighth nonparticipating royalty interest for 15 years (Kenneth retains mineral interest undisturbed) | Deed conveyed all mineral interests except a floating fraction of landowner’s royalty equal to one‑eighth | Court construed deed as reserving a fixed one‑eighth nonparticipating royalty (of the grantor’s one‑fourth) to Kenneth for 15 years; Gips hold remaining interest (trial court’s floating‑royalty construction rejected) |
| Admissibility of certain summary‑judgment evidence | Objected exclusions were erroneous and deprived Kenneth of proof | Gips objected to hearsay, authentication, parol evidence; trial court sustained objections | Appellate court could not review evidentiary exclusions because excluded materials were not in appellate record; issue overruled on procedural grounds |
| Use of 2011 stipulation in deed construction | Stipulation is extrinsic and unnecessary; deed is unambiguous so four‑corners rule controls | Stipulation reflects parties’ intent and should be considered | Court held deed unambiguous and that the trial court erred by considering the 2011 stipulation; four‑corners rule applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Hamilton, 280 S.W.2d 588 (Tex. 1955) (partition deed generally does not operate as conveyance of title)
- Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1991) (four‑corners rule for construing unambiguous deeds)
- Avery v. Grande, Inc., 717 S.W.2d 891 (Tex. 1986) (effect of reserving a fraction in a deed depends on whether fraction is of grantor's share or of the land described)
- Garza v. De Montalvo, 217 S.W.2d 988 (Tex. 1949) (partition deeds are contracts subject to rules of construction)
- Dierschke v. Cent. Nat’l Branch of First Nat’l Bank at Lubbock, 876 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. App.—Austin 1994) (all cotenants must participate to bind a voluntary partition of cotenanted minerals)
- Joyner v. Christian, 113 S.W.2d 1229 (Tex. 1938) (estoppel to deny effect of partition where nonjoining cotenants acquiesced)