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. | Oct 20, 2015Background
- Appellees (Davis and related entities) obtained two 1991 deeds that used specific survey descriptions plus county‑wide (blanket) granting language conveying all mineral/royalty interests owned by each grantor in Harrison County.
- Appellant Mueller challenges enforceability of the 1991 deeds, alleging fraud and that the deeds violate the statute of frauds (insufficient property description); he also proffers extrinsic/parol evidence (character, habit, and other documents).
- Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing the deeds are unambiguous, that blanket/county‑wide grants satisfy the statute of frauds, and that Mueller lacks standing to assert fraud or statute‑of‑frauds defenses as a stranger to the original conveyances.
- The parties dispute whether Hooks v. Samson (a limitations/discovery‑rule case) supports Mueller’s invocation of parol evidence or tolling; Appellees say Hooks is inapplicable to deed‑construction and notice questions.
- Appellees also moved for appellate sanctions under Tex. R. App. P. 45, arguing Mueller’s briefs ignored controlling precedent validating blanket conveyances and were frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mueller) | Defendant's Argument (Davis / Appellees) | Held / Ruling (as argued by Appellees) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to assert fraud or statute‑of‑frauds defenses | Mueller argues predecessors were defrauded so he can challenge deeds' enforceability | Appellees: Mueller is not in privity with original grantors and thus lacks standing to assert fraud or statute‑of‑frauds defenses | Appellees urge waiver and dismissal on standing grounds (Mueller failed to brief standing) |
| Adequacy of property description / statute of frauds | County‑wide blanket grants are insufficient absent metes‑and‑bounds or cross‑reference | Appellees: established Texas law holds blanket or county‑wide grants can furnish an adequate nucleus of description and are enforceable | Appellees contend deeds are unambiguous and satisfy the statute of frauds as a matter of law |
| Use of parol evidence and invocation of Hooks | Mueller seeks to admit extrinsic evidence and invokes Hooks to suggest deeds were ‘tainted by fraud’ or limitations tolled | Appellees: Hooks is a limitations/discovery‑rule decision, not a rule for admitting parol to create ambiguity; deeds should be construed four‑corners | Appellees argue parol/hearsay is inadmissible to create ambiguity; Hooks is inapplicable here |
| Sanctions for frivolous appeal | Mueller defends his briefing and evidence proffers | Appellees: briefs ignore controlling precedent and fail to address standing; appeal is frivolous and sanctions warranted | Appellees request sanctions (just damages) and ask the Court to affirm summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooks v. Samson Lone Star, 457 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2015) (addresses accrual and discovery rule/fraudulent concealment in oil & gas record context)
- Sun Oil Co. v. Burns, 84 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1935) (upholds general grants that broaden specific descriptions; blanket descriptions can be unambiguous)
- Texas Consolidated Oils v. Bartels, 270 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. Civ. App. Eastland 1954) (blanket conveyance filed of record provides notice to subsequent purchasers)
- U.S. Enterprises, Inc. v. Dauley, 535 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1976) (recognizes exception where a grant of all property in a named area suffices to identify property)
- Morrow v. Shotwell, 477 S.W.2d 538 (Tex. 1972) (four‑corners rule: extrinsic evidence not admissible to interpret unambiguous deeds)
- Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1991) (primary duty is to ascertain parties' intent from the instrument’s language; harmonize all parts)
- J. Hiram Moore, Ltd. v. Greer, 172 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2005) (rejects narrow rule that general grants can only cover small strips adjacent to specifically described land)
- Coe v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., 695 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 2012) (applies Texas law to hold blanket descriptions can supply an adequate nucleus of description and satisfy statute of frauds)