Mark J. Mueller v. James H. Davis, Individually, James H. Davis D/B/A J.D. Minerals, and JDMI, LLC
06-14-00100-CV
| Tex. Crim. App. | Jun 16, 2015Background
- Mueller sues to quiet title to Harrison County oil and gas interests; Appellee claims through a Mother Hubbard clause attached to 1991 conveyances from Cope and Mills; 1991 deeds lack metes-and-bounds descriptions and do not reference a prior filed document; the trial court granted summary judgment to Appellee; Mueller argues conveyances void for Statute of Frauds and that Mother Hubbard clause cannot convey large interests; factual disputes exist over what property was conveyed and possession of minerals; numerous related documents and admissions in discovery show inconsistencies and prior acts by Appellee.
- Mueller contends the 1991 deeds inadequately describe the land and are void under Section 26.01; the Mother Hubbard clause is limited to small adjacent strips and cannot cover Harrison County-wide interests; there are genuine issues about whether Mills/Cope conveyed all their interests.
- Appellee asserts the conveyances sufficiently described the land or that the Mother Hubbard clause broadens the grant to all minerals; he argues no unresolved material facts about possession, and that the 1991 documents were intended to convey broad interests.
- The court granted summary judgment for Appellee, holding the conveyances effectively conveyed all mineral interests in Harrison County and that the descriptions, though imperfect, were sufficient.
- Mueller seeks reversal and remand to decide issues of intent, description sufficiency, and possession; the record shows conflicting admissions and documents suggesting material factual disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conveyances fail for Statute of Frauds insufficient descriptions | Mueller | Davis | Yes, descriptions legally insufficient |
| Whether Mother Hubbard clause could convey large mineral interests | Mueller | Davis | No, catch-all limited to small adjacent interests |
| Whether the property actually conveyed is clearly identified | Mueller | Davis | Material fact exists as to conveyed property |
| Whether ambiguity over land description requires trial evidence | Mueller | Davis | Yes, issue for trial to determine intent |
| Whether there are material facts about possession/control given admissions and records | Mueller | Davis | Material facts remain; remand warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. Amoco Prod. Co., 150 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2004) (statute of frauds land description sufficiency)
- Pick v. Bartel, 659 S.W.2d 636 (Tex.1983) (legal description sufficiency; de novo review)
- Jones v. Kelley, 614 S.W.2d 95 (Tex. 1981) (land description must identify land with reasonable certainty)
- Sun Oil Co. v. Bennett, 125 Tex. 540, 84 S.W.2d 447 (1935) (Mother Hubbard clause limited purpose to small strips)
- Smith v. Allison, 157 Tex. 220, 301 S.W.2d 608 (1956) (catch-all clause ambiguity when conveyed interest exceeds description)
- J. Hiram Moore, Ltd. v. Greer, 172 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2005) (catch-all language cannot convey substantial interests not described)