Red Boot Production Company, Inc., Barbara Landrum, Widow of Claude John Landrum, Eric Landrum, Matthew Wayne Landrum, Scott Michael Landrum, Dawn Ewing Mills, Tamara Ewing, Sean Ewing, Laura Ewing, J. Patrick Morris Sr., Joseph J. Morris v. Samson Exploration, LLC and SM Energy Company F/K/A St. Mary Land & Exploration Company
09-14-00191-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 1, 2015Background
- August Delaune granted a canal easement to Beaumont Irrigating Company (1898); a 200-foot-wide canal across his land (now LNVA) existed when he later sold adjacent tracts.
- Delaune conveyed a 1,101.74-acre tract south of the canal in 1908 (Bernard deed) and a 480-acre tract north of the canal in 1916 (Paggi deed); neither deed expressly reserved the strip under the canal or mineral rights.
- Dispute arose after gas wells producing under the canal were completed; Red Boot leased minerals from Delaune’s descendants (intervenors) who claimed the 38-acre canal strip (Canal Tract).
- Defendants (Samson, SM Energy, Broussards, Harders) moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment asserting the 1908 and 1916 deeds conveyed the fee to the canal’s centerline under established construction rules (strip-and-gore, centerline presumption, appurtenances).
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; on appeal the court reviewed deed construction de novo and upheld the summary judgment, rejecting arguments about reversion, value of the strip, heirs’ interests, and continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1908 and 1916 deeds conveyed title beneath the canal to the centerline | Deeds call to the canal edge and therefore reserved the canal strip; descendants own Canal Tract | Deeds convey entire parcels; absent express reservation grant extends to centerline of easement | Deeds construed as conveying fee to canal centerline; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Applicability of strip-and-gore doctrine (narrow strip between two conveyed tracts) | Doctrine inapplicable because call to canal edge shows intent to reserve; strip not necessarily "small" relative to other tracts | Doctrine presumes grantor intended to include narrow, unimportant strip when adjoining land conveyed | Canal Tract was narrow/small relative to adjoining 1,580 acres; strip-and-gore doctrine supports inclusion in conveyances |
| Centerline presumption and whether it applies to a canal easement | Presumption limited to highways/railroads; irrigation canal is different and may create only easement in gross | Owners adjoining canals have appurtenant rights; centerline presumption applies absent clear contrary intent | Centerline presumption applies to this canal easement; appurtenant rights and statutory framework support presumption |
| Whether Delaune’s children (via Azima’s community interest) retained an interest preventing conveyance | Children inherited Azima’s half-interest; question whether Delaune (as community administrator) could sell without clear ratification | Delaune acted as qualified community administrator and children ratified/quitclaimed interests | Summary judgment evidence showed authority/ratification; no fact issue as to children’s interest in these deeds |
| Denial of continuance to obtain additional discovery (privileged docs) | Continuance needed to explore privileged Division Order title opinion and other documents bearing on title | Trial court considered continuance, conducted in-camera review, and no abuse of discretion occurred | Denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion; appellants failed to show prejudice or that additional discovery would change outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (summary judgment evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Weed v. Rio Bravo Oil Co., 50 S.W.2d 1080 (Tex. 1932) (centerline presumption for highways/railroads; appurtenant rights rule)
- Cox v. Campbell, 143 S.W.2d 361 (Tex. 1940) (applying centerline presumption where grantor sold land on both sides of easement in separate transactions)
- Sun Oil Co. v. Burns, 84 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. 1935) (court must derive grantor intent from the instrument as a whole)
- Brunson v. Yount-Lee Oil Co., 56 S.W.2d 1073 (Tex. 1933) (authority of qualified community administrator to dispose of community property)