Luminant Mining v. PakeyBey
14f4th375
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background:
- In 1848 Texas conveyed 1,280 acres in Rusk County to Isham Chism and Jesse Walling as tenants in common.
- From 1979–1994 Luminant’s predecessors acquired many tracts traced to Chism/Walling; each recorded deed purported to convey fee simple, and Luminant has mined/managed timber on the tracts (recorded title since at least 1994; active use since at least 2009).
- In 2019 Kendi Narmer PakeyBey recorded a warranty deed claiming ~951 acres as heir of John Walling, occupied the land, and harvested timber.
- Luminant sued in state court for trespass to try title; the case was removed to federal court and the district court granted summary judgment to Luminant.
- The district court relied on the Texas doctrine of presumed grant to fill gaps in chain of title and alternatively held Luminant adversely possessed the land.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding adverse possession independently established Luminant’s fee simple ownership.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Luminant’s chain of title could be completed by the doctrine of presumed grant | Luminant: recorded deeds and long open claim permit presumed grant to fill gaps | PakeyBey: challenges application of presumed grant to Luminant’s chain | Court did not rely on this issue on appeal; district court applied presumed grant but Fifth Circuit affirmed on adverse possession grounds |
| Whether Luminant acquired title by adverse possession | Luminant: continuous, visible, hostile, peaceable possession for statutory period (tacking applied) | PakeyBey: possession was not hostile to cotenants; no repudiation/notice | Held for Luminant: undisputed evidence satisfied Texas adverse possession elements (at least ten years) |
| Whether cotenants received notice/repudiation (ouster) sufficient to start limitations against them | Luminant: recorded deeds and possession gave constructive notice and effected ouster | PakeyBey: recordation and possession alone are insufficient to show constructive notice/ouster | Held: recorded grants purporting to convey whole estate plus possession gave constructive notice and effected ouster |
| Whether PakeyBey proved heirship/continued tenancy in common | PakeyBey: claims heir of Walling so tenancy in common survives | Luminant: no demonstrated connection and adverse possession defeats claim | Held: PakeyBey failed to show a connection; adverse possession resolves dispute in Luminant’s favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Bywaters v. Gannon, 686 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. 1985) (elements required to establish adverse possession as a matter of law)
- Parr v. Ratisseau, 236 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Civ. App. 1951) (recording a deed to a third party gives constructive notice and effects ouster of cotenants)
- Todd v. Bruner, 365 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. 1963) (a cotenant must repudiate common title to claim adverse possession)
- Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Pool, 124 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. 2003) (statutory adverse possession elements and requirements)
- Fair v. Arp Club Lake, Inc., 437 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. App. 2014) (doctrine of presumed grant as a form of common-law adverse possession)
- Clark v. Amoco Prod. Co., 794 F.2d 967 (5th Cir. 1986) (presumed grant fills gaps in chain of title where appropriate)
- Conley v. Comstock Oil & Gas LP, 356 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. App. 2011) (discussing operation of presumed grant doctrine)
- Brumley v. McDuff, 616 S.W.3d 826 (Tex. 2021) (trespass-to-try-title framework for proving title)