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. | Nov 12, 2015Background
- Appellees James H. Davis and JDMI, LLC filed a responsive letter brief in No. 06-14-00100-CV in the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana.
- The dispute centers on whether Appellees preserved objections to parol evidence and the trial court’s treatment of that evidence.
- Appellant Atueller’s briefs argued, among other things, that blanket descriptions and parol evidence invalidated conveyances; Appellees replied with authorities supporting blanket grants.
- The court addresses whether parol evidence is admissible where the deed language is unambiguous or ambiguous and whether preservation of error is demonstrated.
- The parties discuss sanctions for frivolous appeal under Tex. R. App. P. 45 in light of the alleged frivolous positions on the law of deeds.
- Exhibit and correspondence from counsel (including letters about replies and sanctions) are included as context for the appellate briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of parol-evidence objections | Davis argues parol evidence objections were preserved. | Atue ller contends no explicit ruling required to preserve error. | Appellees must show trial-court ruling or explicit refusal to rule to preserve. |
| Parol evidence rule as substantive law | Parol evidence is improperly used to defeat written instruments. | Parol evidence can be disregarded when deeds are unambiguous. | Parol evidence is immaterial if the deed is unambiguous and otherwise not probative. |
| Waiver of error by Appellant on parol-evidence | Appellant did not waive, preserving issue for appeal. | Appellant has waived by failing to preserve or raise timely objections. | Appellant waived the parol-evidence issue due to failure to preserve. |
| Effect of parol evidence even if not objected to | Even without objection, parol evidence is still probative as evidence. | Parol evidence remains no evidence and immaterial if it violates the rule. | Parol evidence is immaterial and has no probative force absent a valid exception. |
| Sanctions for frivolous appeal | Appellant’s positions are meritorious; sanctions are unwarranted. | Appellant’s late reversal and persistent contrary authority justify sanctions. | Sanctions under Tex. R. App. P. 45 are warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tuttle v. Simpson, 735 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1987) (parol evidence rule as substantive law; not strictly evidentiary)
- Arkansas Oak Flooring Co. v. Mixon, 369 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1963) (parol evidence rule excludes immaterial prior expressions)
- Pac. Fin. Corp. v. Crouch, 243 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1951) (parol evidence rule relevance in Texarkana decisions)
- State Nat'l Bank v. Academia, Inc., 802 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1990) (parol evidence rule and preservation considerations)
- Edascio, L.L.C. v. NextiraOne L.L.C., 264 S.W.3d 786 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (parol evidence rule; immaterial where inoperative)
- Piper, Stiles & Ladd v. Fid. & Dep. Co. of Md., 435 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1968) (parol evidence rule; no evidentiary force)
- Hill v. Bartlette, 181 S.W.3d 541 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005) (preservation and review standards)
- StarTelegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. 1995) (appellate review and preservation standards)
- Texas Consolidated Oils v. Bartels, 270 S.W.2d 708 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1954) (deeds conveying all lands within a county sufficiently describe land)
- Huggins v. Royalty Clearinghouse, Ltd., not cited with an official reporter () (discussed as authority; not included due to WL citation)