Richard D. Crawford v. Xto Energy, Inc., 509 S.W.3d 906

Mary Ruth Crawford reserved oil and gas under an 8.235-acre tract (the Crawford tract) but conveyed adjacent lands in 1984 without an express mineral reservation; those adjacent parcels were later subdivided and leased.
In 2007 Crawford (through her son Richard after her death) ratified an oil-and-gas lease on the Crawford tract; XTO pooled that lease into the Eden Southwest Unit with many adjacent leases.
XTO obtained a title opinion applying the strip-and-gore doctrine and concluded adjacent landowners owned the Crawford-tract minerals; XTO thereafter credited Crawford-tract royalties to 44 adjacent landowners and paid them, but paid nothing to Crawford.
Crawford sued XTO for breach of contract, declaratory relief, and related claims, asserting XTO’s payments clouded his title and seeking royalties.
XTO moved to compel joinder of the 44 adjacent landowners under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 39; the trial court ordered joinder and later dismissed Crawford’s suit without prejudice when he did not join them; the court of appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion in requiring joinder under Rule 39 and dismissing the suit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 39(a) required joinder of adjacent landowners as necessary parties	Crawford: adjacent owners have not claimed any interest in the Crawford tract; Rule 39 requires actual claim, so joinder unnecessary	XTO: adjacent owners effectively claim the Crawford-tract minerals via strip-and-gore and are paid royalties, so their absence risks inconsistent obligations	Held: No. Rule 39(a) requires that the absent persons actually claim an interest; adjacent owners made no claim, so joinder was not required
Whether a plaintiff’s lack of a reporter’s record of pretrial hearings waived appellate review	Crawford: hearings were nonevidentiary and clerk’s record contained filings; no waiver	XTO: absent reporter’s record presumes evidence supporting joinder/dismissal	Held: No waiver; presumption of nonevidentiary hearings applied and record was adequate
Whether XTO’s unilateral royalty payments create a Rule 39(a)(2) risk of inconsistent obligations justifying joinder	Crawford: XTO’s unilateral payments do not convert potential claims into actual claimed interests; risk arises from XTO’s conduct, not landowners’ claims	XTO: payments and likely future suits by landowners create substantial risk of double/inconsistent obligations	Held: No. Risk flowing from XTO’s unilateral payment decision does not satisfy Rule 39(a)(2) because absent landowners did not claim the interest

Cantley v. Gulf Prod. Co., 143 S.W.2d 912 (Tex. 1940) (articulates the strip-and-gore doctrine presumption)
Piotrowski v. Minns, 873 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. 1993) (rules on waiver from failure to obtain reporter’s record of pretrial proceedings)
Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (presumption that pretrial hearings are nonevidentiary absent indication otherwise)
Royal Petroleum Corp. v. Dennis, 332 S.W.2d 313 (Tex. 1960) (standard of review for joinder rulings)
Veal v. Thomason, 159 S.W.2d 472 (Tex. 1942) (joinder of lessors required where absent parties expressly claimed interests)
Stribling v. Millican DPC Partners, LP, 458 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2015) (strip-and-gore doctrine may give rise to a presumption that an omitted strip was conveyed)
Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Pool, 124 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. 2003) (discusses ownership interests under pooled-unit leases)
Brooks v. Northglen Ass’n, 141 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. 2004) (interpretation of declaratory judgment joinder language vs. Rule 39)