Walter Bounds and Wife, Carolyn B. Bounds, Appellants/Cross-Appellees v. John Thomas Prud'Homme, Appellees/Cross-Appellants, 12-15-00177-CV

In 2001 Walter and Carolyn Bounds contracted to buy a 126.632-acre tract from the E.G. & M.A. Prud’homme Beneficiaries Partnership; the written sales contract stated the sellers would convey “all minerals owned.”
Closing was delayed while individual partners/heirs (the Breens) executed deeds required by the title company; six near-identical warranty deeds were prepared by the Bounds’ lawyer and executed in Sept–Oct 2001.
Each deed included a form heading “Reservations from and Exceptions to Conveyance and Warranty” followed by language referencing prior mineral reservations in earlier instruments (language similar to title-commitment Schedule B); the deeds did not contain an explicit, separate sentence plainly stating the grantors “reserve” minerals.
The Bounds (and their advisor/attorney) understood the deed language as limiting grantor warranties (i.e., not reserving minerals); some Prud’homme signatories claim they read the same language as a reservation and believed the sales terms had changed.
At bench trial the district court awarded the Prud’hommes title/possession of 45% of the mineral estate (concluding the partnership deed unambiguously reserved minerals), awarded the Bounds 5% (Breen heirs’ deeds were construed to convey), and denied reformation and (alternatively) found the action time-barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bounds)	Defendant's Argument (Prud'hommes)	Held (trial court)
1. Is the partnership deed ambiguous or does it unambiguously reserve minerals?	Deed language is not an express reservation; must be construed against grantor and as limiting warranty — conveys grantor’s minerals.	Language following the “Reservations and Exceptions” heading reserved minerals (as written), so deeds do not convey the minerals.	Court held the partnership deed unambiguously reserved the grantors’ minerals.
2. Can the deeds be reformed for mutual mistake / scrivener’s error?	Even if deeds are read to reserve minerals, parol and surrounding circumstances show a mutual mistake or scrivener error (original contract required conveyance of all minerals); reformation warranted.	No mutual intent to convey minerals existed at execution; parties had different understandings so reformation not proper.	Court found no mutual mistake and denied reformation.
3. Is the Bounds’ reformation claim barred by the statute of limitations?	Bounds had no actual or constructive notice of Prud’hommes’ claim until 2010; suit (filed 2013) was within 4-year limitations after discovery. Title policy’s Schedule B did not give notice that sellers claimed the minerals.	Bounds had constructive notice upon receipt of deeds/title policy in 2001; limitations expired.	Court concluded the reformation claim was time-barred.

Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1991) (construction of unambiguous deed is question of law; four-corners rule)
Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1983) (contract language not ambiguous if it can be given definite meaning)
Dewitt County Elec. Coop. v. Parks, 1 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. 1998) (ambiguity requires application of construction rules; parol evidence and surrounding circumstances may inform meaning)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal sufficiency review of fact findings)
Houston Exploration Co. v. Wellington Underwriting Agencies, 352 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. 2011) (parol-evidence rule does not bar consideration of surrounding circumstances that inform but do not contradict written contract)
Cherokee Water Co. v. Forderhause, 741 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. 1987) (reformation corrects mutual mistake so written instrument reflects original agreement)
Davis v. Grammar, 750 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. 1988) (a unilateral mistake known to the other party may be equivalent to mutual mistake for equitable relief)