History
  • No items yet
midpage
469 S.W.3d 619
Tex. App.
2015

Try one of our plugins.

Chat with this case or research any legal issue with our plugins for Claude, ChatGPT, or Perplexity.

ClaudeChatGPT
Read the full case

Background

  • 1949 warranty deed reserved to six grantors an undivided interest in and to the 1/8 royalties paid the landowner upon production from the 278-acre Karnes County tract.
  • the deed does not explicitly state the royalty shares for Alex and Leo, who later became grantees, but confirms their undivided interest in the 1/8 royalties.
  • Medina Interests, Ltd. (successor to Alex/Leo) and the six grantors’ successors filed competing motions for summary judgment on whether the reservation was a fixed 1/8 or a floating royalty.
  • later leases (2007 Paid-Up Leases) and 2012 Stipulations of Mineral Interest prompted Medina to challenge Marathon Oil EL LLC’s interpretation of the deed’s royalty reservation.
  • the trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, holding a floating royalty, and Medina appealed seeking a fixed 1/8 royalty interpretation.
  • the court affirmed, holding the reservation created a floating royalty rather than a fixed 1/8 royalty.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the six grantors reserved a fixed 1/8 royalty or a floating royalty. Medina contends the deed’s language unambiguously reserves a fixed 1/8 royalty. Appellees contend the reservation contemplates a floating royalty tied to the landowner’s future lease royalties. Floating royalty reserved; deed unambiguous in meaning as floating.

Key Cases Cited

  • Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1991) (constraints on fixed vs floating royalties; interpretive framework)
  • Concord Oil Co. v. Pennzoil Exploration & Prod. Co., 966 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. 1998) (examine entire instrument to ascertain intent)
  • Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1983) (no single provision controls; harmonize whole document)
  • Graham v. Prochaska, 429 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (distinguishes fixed vs floating royalties; entitlement determined by lease royalties)
  • Dawkins v. Hysaw, 450 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (examples of fixed vs floating royalties; floating transfers a share of whatever royalty remains)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Medina Interests, Ltd v. William Paul Trial
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Jun 24, 2015
Citations: 469 S.W.3d 619; 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6382; 2015 WL 3895902; 04-14-00521-CV
Docket Number: 04-14-00521-CV
Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.
Log In
    Medina Interests, Ltd v. William Paul Trial, 469 S.W.3d 619