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. App. | Aug 17, 2015Background
- In 1991 Mills and Cope executed mineral conveyances to JD Minerals (James H. Davis) that (1) list specific surveys and (2) also state a blanket grant: “all of the mineral, royalty, and overriding royalty interest owned by Grantor in Harrison County, whether or not same is herein above correctly described.” Those deeds were recorded.
- Appellant Mark Mueller claims title to overlapping mineral interests and sued (quiet title, fraud, failure of consideration, etc.), asserting the 1991 deeds are void under the statute of frauds for lack of a sufficiently specific legal description.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees (Davis/JD Minerals); Mueller appealed. The trial court’s order did not specify grounds; appellee moved to affirm on the grounds that county‑wide/blanket descriptions are legally sufficient and that Mueller lacks standing for many claims.
- Appellees argue (a) Texas precedent holds a grant of all interests owned by a grantor in a defined geographic unit (state, county, survey) satisfies the statute of frauds (or is an exception to its particularity requirement), (b) the 1991 deeds are unambiguous on their face, (c) parol evidence cannot create an ambiguity, (d) Mueller—being a stranger to the 1991 conveyances—lacks standing to attack them on many equitable grounds, and (e) Mueller had notice from the recorded deeds (Tex. Prop. Code §13.002).
- Appellees additionally ask for Rule 45 sanctions for a frivolous appeal and submitted affidavits quantifying appellate fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mueller) | Defendant's Argument (Davis/JD Minerals) | Held (trial court summary judgment affirmed by appellee brief) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether a “county‑wide” or blanket property description satisfies the Statute of Frauds | County‑wide recital without metes-and-bounds is insufficient; deeds void | Longstanding Texas authority permits a grant of all grantor interests in a defined area (county/survey) as sufficient or an exception to particularity | Deeds are valid blanket conveyances satisfying statute of frauds (no fact issue) |
| 2. Whether the 1991 deeds meet requirements of a valid blanket, unambiguous conveyance | The general clause conflicts with specifics and creates ambiguity | Deeds contain specific survey descriptions plus a general county‑wide grant that enlarges the specific; no repugnance shown | Deeds are unambiguous; general grant enlarges specific grant |
| 3. Whether parol evidence may be used to create ambiguity | Parol evidence shows parties’ intent and post‑conveyance conduct contradict deed scope | If the instrument is unambiguous, interpretation is a question of law for the court and parol evidence is inadmissible to create ambiguity | Parol evidence cannot create ambiguity in an unambiguous blanket conveyance; court decides as matter of law |
| 4. Standing, notice, and sanctions | Mueller argues he can attack deeds (fraud, failure of consideration) and delays accrual | As a non‑party to the 1991 deeds, Mueller lacks privity to assert many claims; recorded deeds impute notice under Tex. Prop. Code §13.002; appeal is frivolous | Mueller lacks standing for many claims; notice imputed at recording; appellees seek and quantify Rule 45 sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Consol. Oils v. Bartels, 270 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. Civ. App. 1954) (upholding broad recital conveying grantor's interests in named jurisdictions as sufficient description)
- Sun Oil Co. v. Burns, 84 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1935) (conveyance combining specific metes‑and‑bounds with a survey‑ or unit‑wide clause is unambiguous and broadens the specific grant)
- U.S. Enters., Inc. v. Dauley, 535 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1976) (recognizing exception: blanket/grant‑of‑all‑interests in a defined area satisfies statute of frauds particularity requirement)
- Holloway's Unknown Heirs v. Whatley, 131 S.W.2d 89 (Tex. 1939) (affirming validity of a deed conveying all lands owned by grantor in a county)
- Katz v. Bakke, 265 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. Civ. App. San Antonio 1954) (where blanket clause enlarges particular clause, no ambiguity exists as a matter of law)
- Coe v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., 695 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 2012) (applying Texas law: grant of all property in a specified area satisfies statute of frauds)
- J. Hiram Moore, Ltd. v. Greer, 172 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2005) (distinguishable: addressed a deed with repugnant grants leading to a factual question)
- Trahan v. Mettlen, 428 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2014) (recorded instruments give constructive notice; relevant to accrual and notice arguments)