Oliver Lane Chambers, Donna Kay Chambers-Jones, Rhonda Thompson, Clinton L. Chambers and Wife, Brandi N. Chambers v. San Augustine County Appraisal District, 12-15-00201-CV

Appellants (Chambers and others) own royalty/mineral interests appurtenant to 652 acres located entirely in Shelby County, Texas, conveyed by oil and gas leases to Hunt Petroleum/XTO.
Each lease contains a pooling/unitization clause but expressly provides that formation of a unit including land not covered by the lease "shall not have the effect of exchanging or transferring any interest under this lease" between owners of covered and non-covered land.
Appellee San Augustine County Appraisal District (SCAD) placed the Chambers interests into two production units (Tigers and Wolfpack) that also include acreage in San Augustine County, and assessed ad valorem taxes treating a percentage of each owner’s interest as if located in San Augustine.
Appellants protested to the Appraisal Review Board; the Board upheld SCAD’s assessment. Appellants sued for judicial review; SCAD moved for summary judgment claiming the interests were cross-conveyed by pooling and therefore taxable by SCAD.
The trial court granted SCAD’s motion for summary judgment and entered final judgment for SCAD; this brief argues the trial court erred and seeks reversal or remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Chambers)	Defendant's Argument (SCAD)	Held (trial court)
Whether the Chambers interests were cross-conveyed by unitization/pooling	Leases forbid any cross-conveyance or transfer of lease interests when a unit includes land not covered by the lease; therefore no cross-conveyance occurred	Pooling/unitization placed the interests into units that include San Augustine acreage, effectively cross-conveying interests for taxing purposes	Trial court found for SCAD (granted summary judgment)
Whether SCAD may tax royalty interests located entirely outside its county absent cross-conveyance	Absent cross-conveyance, property is taxable only in county where located (Shelby); SCAD lacks authority to tax interests appurtenant to land outside San Augustine	SCAD contends unitization/cross-conveyance brings a portion of the interest into San Augustine, permitting taxation	Trial court held SCAD could tax the interests via the unitization/cross-conveyance theory

Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. 1989) (summary judgment affirmance principles and appellate review guidance)
FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000) (standard of review for summary judgment: de novo)
Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2002) (nonmovant inference and doubt resolution on summary judgment)
Haase v. Glazner, 62 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. 2001) (movant’s burden on summary judgment under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a)
Jones v. Killingsworth, 403 S.W.2d 325 (Tex. 1965) (lessee may not pool beyond lease terms; pooling subject to lease authorization)
Southeastern Pipe Line Co. v. Tichacek, 997 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. 1999) (valid pooling must comply with lease method and purposes)
Oak v. Collin County, 692 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1985) (burden on taxing unit to prove property is within its jurisdiction)
Sheffield v. Hogg, 77 S.W.2d 1021 (Tex. 1934) (royalty interests are real property for taxation)
Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1996) (affirmance of summary judgment if any pleaded ground is meritorious)