Walter Bounds and Wife, Carolyn B. Bounds, Appellants/Cross-Appellees v. John Thomas Prud'Homme, Appellees/Cross-Appellants
12-15-00177-CV
Tex. App.Oct 22, 2015Background
- Deeds were executed in 2001 conveying about 126 acres in San Augustine County from the Prud’homme defendants to Bounds plaintiffs in six instruments.
- The initial deed reserved minerals to the Prud’hommes; five later deeds purported to convey minerals but were argued by Bounds to be ambiguous.
- Trial court held the first deed unambiguous and reserved minerals to the Prud’hommes; the five subsequent deeds were ambiguous and conveyed to Bounds.
- Bounds filed suit October 8, 2013 seeking mineral ownership or reform if deeds reserved minerals.
- Prud’hommes argued the deed language was unambiguous and the statute of limitations barred reformation.
- Supreme Court of Texas later emphasized stability and bright lines in deed interpretation, affecting the outcome on unambiguous deeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial deed unambiguously reserved minerals | Bounds contends deeds were ambiguous on minerals, seeking reform | Prud’homme argues four corners show unambiguous reservation | Unambiguous reservation in initial deed, mineral estate reserved to Prud’hommes |
| Whether there was mutual mistake | Bounds argues mutual mistake warranted reformation | Prud’homme argues no mutual mistake and deed reflects new agreement | No mutual mistake as a matter of law |
| Whether discovery rule tolls the four-year statute of limitations | Bounds seeks tolling due to alleged discovery after 2001 | Deeds unambiguous; discovery rule not available | Discovery rule does not apply to unambiguous deeds; limitations not tolled |
Key Cases Cited
- Bright v. Johnson, 302 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2009) (no pet. h.; distinction between reservation and exception; deference to four-corners approach)
- Temple-Eastex Inc. v. Addison Bank, 672 S.W.2d 793 (Tex. 1984) (construction rules; favor certainty in title matters)
- Sun Oil Co. v. Madeley, 626 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. 1981) (circumstantial evidence and parol evidence rules clarified)
- Stowe v. Head, 728 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1987) (guidance on deed interpretation; ambiguity standards)
- Barfield v. V.C. Holland, 844 S.W.2d 759 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1993) (notice and inquiry in title; constructive notice rules clarified)
- Cherokee Water Co. v. Freeman, 33 S.W.3d 349 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2000) (drafter’s language; strict construction against drafter)