433 S.W.3d 67
Tex. App.2014Background
- Boundary dispute over 34.28-acre parcel within Brazos County, between Millican DPC Partners, LP and Peach Creek (Millican) and Frank Bobbitt McGregor Trust (McGregor).
- 34.28 acres were omitted from the Prescott–Barrett First Tract metes and bounds description, though part of the 202-acre Nunn–Prescott tract.
- Nunn–Prescott Deed (1945) conveyed the 202-acre tract that includes the disputed parcel to Prescott; Prescott–Barrett Deed references that 202-acre tract.
- Barrett–McFarlane Deed (1974) incorporates Prescott–Barrett Deed and Exhibit A, describing the same three tracts.
- Kling survey evidence suggested the First Tract’s metes and bounds did not include the 34.28 acres; the chain of title was disputed.
- Trial court granted McGregor summary judgment; appellate court reversed, declaring Millican holds record title and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Prescott-Barrett convey the 34.28-acre parcel via incorporation of the Nunn–Prescott Deed? | Millican: parcel conveyed as part of 202-acre tract referenced in Nunn–Prescott. | McGregor: metes and bounds control; parcel not included. | Yes; Prescott-Barrett conveys the 34.28-acre parcel by incorporation. |
| Do Barrett–McFarlane Deed and Exhibit A convey the 34.28-acre parcel by incorporation? | Millican: incorporation conveys the full 202-acre tract. | McGregor: no separate metes and bounds for 34.28 acres; not conveyed. | Yes; Barrett–McFarlane Deed conveys the 202-acre tract, including 34.28 acres. |
| Was Millican entitled to summary judgment on record title? | Millican: deeds unambiguously confer record title. | McGregor: the deeds do not convey Millican’s title as a matter of law. | No; trial court erred; Millican entitled to declaratory judgment of record title. |
| Should Millican recover attorney’s fees and the McGregor Trust’s adverse possession claim be remanded? | Millican seeking fees; title resolution may affect fee entitlement. | McGregor contends limitations and other defenses bar claims. | Remand for fees and adverse possession issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1991) (deed construction; four-corners rule and intent)
- Sun Oil Co. v. Burns, 84 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. 1935) (controlling description when conflict with general/particular descriptions)
- Cullers v. Platt, 16 S.W. 1005 (Tex. 1891) (general vs. particular description; control where possible)
- Dixon v. Amoco Prod. Co., 150 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2004) (read instruments in chain of title; incorporation effect)
- Forbau v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 876 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. 1994) (interpretation; harmonize instrument parts)
- XTO Energy Inc. v. Nikolai, 357 S.W.3d 47 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011) (read referenced deed as incorporated conveying described property)
- CenterPoint Energy Houston Elec., L.L.P. v. Old TJC Co., 177 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. App.—Houston 1st Dist. 2005) (deed interpretation; incorporation of prior deeds)