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. | Oct 16, 2015Background
- This document is Appellees’ sur-reply brief in an appeal (No. 06-14-00100-CV) by Mark Mueller challenging two 1991 deeds conveying mineral interests in Harrison County, Texas.
- Appellees moved for summary judgment in the trial court; the trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees and this appeal followed; Appellees also seek appellate sanctions against Mueller.
- Central legal dispute: whether the 1991 deeds’ county‑wide (blanket) and survey‑wide granting clauses satisfy the statute of frauds and are unambiguous, or whether Mueller may attack them for fraud/statute‑of‑frauds defects using parol evidence (including alleged past misconduct and font‑size arguments).
- Appellees’ primary arguments: (1) Mueller lacks standing to assert fraud or statute‑of‑frauds defenses as a stranger/not in privity; (2) the deeds are unambiguous on their faces and blanket county‑wide conveyances validly identify property; (3) parol/character evidence is inadmissible to create ambiguity; and (4) Mueller’s briefing ignores controlling authority and is sanctionable.
- Appellees rely on longstanding Texas precedent that a general granting clause can enlarge a specific description absent repugnance, that blanket conveyances can satisfy the statute of frauds, and that four‑corners construction controls when instruments are unambiguous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mueller) | Defendant's Argument (Appellees) | Held / Requested Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to assert fraud claims against Appellees | Mueller contends predecessors were defrauded and Appellees’ deeds are tainted by fraud (invoking Hooks). | Appellees: Mueller is not in privity with original grantors and thus lacks standing to pursue fraud/undue‑influence defenses; he waived any standing argument by failing to brief it. | Appellees ask the court to find Mueller lacks standing and affirm summary judgment. |
| Statute of Frauds / adequacy of description | Mueller argues the deeds fail the statute of frauds because they lack metes‑and‑bounds or page/volume references. | Appellees: Blanket county‑wide and survey‑wide grants furnish an adequate ‘‘nucleus of description’’; such conveyances are valid and enlarge specific descriptions absent repugnance. | Appellees ask the court to hold the deeds satisfy the statute of frauds and affirm summary judgment. |
| Ambiguity and admissibility of parol evidence | Mueller seeks to use parol, character, hearsay evidence (and even font/format arguments) to show ambiguity or fraud. | Appellees: The deeds are unambiguous on their four corners; extrinsic/parol evidence and inadmissible hearsay cannot be used to create ambiguity; Hooks (a limitations case) does not change the four‑corners rule here. | Appellees ask the court to exclude parol evidence, treat deeds as unambiguous, and affirm summary judgment. |
| Sanctions for frivolous appeal | Mueller contends his appeal is earnest and raises legitimate issues. | Appellees: Mueller ignored controlling authority (many cases validating blanket grants), failed to brief standing, and advanced meritless, conclusory arguments—warranting Rule 45 sanctions. | Appellees request appellate sanctions (specified amount) and ask the court to find the appeal frivolous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooks v. Samson Lone Star, 457 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2015) (discusses limitations, discovery rule, and duty to examine public records for notice)
- Sun Oil Co. v. Burns, 84 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1935) (blanket and survey‑wide grants can be given effect; general grant may enlarge specific grant)
- Texas Consolidated Oils v. Bartels, 270 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. Civ. App. Eastland 1954) (blanket conveyances filed of record give notice to subsequent purchasers)
- Morrow v. Shotwell, 477 S.W.2d 538 (Tex. 1972) (a writing need not contain metes and bounds to be enforceable; extrinsic evidence not admissible to interpret unambiguous deeds)
- Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1991) (four‑corners rule: primary duty is to ascertain intent from the instrument’s language)
- U.S. Enterprises, Inc. v. Dauley, 535 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1976) (recognizes exception where conveyance describes all grantor’s interests in a named county or state)
- Coe v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., 695 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 2012) (applying Texas law: counties‑wide conveyances can supply a sufficient nucleus of description)
- J. Hiram Moore, Ltd. v. Greer, 172 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2005) (rejects the notion that general grants can never include substantial tracts beyond specifically described lands)