XTO Energy Inc. v. Nikolai, 357 S.W.3d 47

Chain of title tracing from Shields Deed (1882) and Madewell Deed (1904) to the Nikolais shows a mineral reservation retained by Madewell.
Speer Deed (1922) reiterates that mineral rights were not transferred, creating a contested reserve in the Nikolais’ title chain.
Nikolais sue XTO in Nov 2007 to quiet title and obtain UDJA relief, challenging mineral reservations and asserting surface/mineral ownership.
Trial court granted Nikolais summary judgment on title and denied XTO summary judgment; judgment later included estoppel-by-deed discussions.
XTO asserted estoppel by deed and sought declarations about the mineral reservation; Nikolais argued Madewell/Speer deeds were void for description and mineral reservation invalid.
On appeal, court held Nikolais estopped by deed from denying the mineral reservation; reversed in part and remanded in part, with fee issues and attorney’s fees addressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Estoppel by deed bars denial of mineral reservation	Nikolais contend reservation void; estoppel should not bind denial	XTO maintains estoppel by deed binds Nikolais through chain of title	Estoppel by deed applies; Nikolais barred from denying mineral reservation
Trial court erred by granting Nikolais summary judgment on title/UDJA	Nikolais claim title in fee simple including minerals despite reservations	XTO seeks relief on mineral reservation and related issues	Court erred; summary judgment for Nikolais reversed; estoppel controls
Adverse possession and prior possession claims failed	Nikolais supported by Leonard Nikolai affidavit alleging possession-related rights	Affidavit evidence is inadmissible as summary judgment proof; no proven possession	Nikolais cannot establish adverse or prior possession; claim overruled
Attorney's fees under the UDJA were improperly awarded/denied	UDJA fees available due to title-relief claims	Suits were essentially Trespass to Try Title; UDJA fees not recoverable	Denial of attorney’s fees affirmed; UDJA not applicable for these title claims
Remand for Alagood's ad litem fee matter	Ad litem fees should be determined on appeal	Fees issues require trial-court determination	Remand to determine reasonable ad litem appellate fees

Greene v. White, 137 Tex. 361, 1941 (Tex. 1941) (recitals in deeds bind parties and pass title via muniment of title)
Angell v. Bailey, 225 S.W.3d 834 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2007) (estoppel by deed applies to recitals in deeds)
Williams v. Hardie, 85 Tex. 499, 22 S.W. 399 (Tex. 1893) (recitals in a deed bind grantees and successors)
Brown v. Chambers, 63 Tex. 131 (Tex. 1885) (read-in deed instruments incorporate described maps/surveys)
Masgas v. Anderson, 310 S.W.3d 567 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2010) (estoppel by deed requires binding recitals in chain of title)
Poag v. Flories, 317 S.W.3d 820 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010) (UDJA fees not recoverable where title dispute is effectively trespass to try title)
Martin v. Amerman, 133 S.W.3d 262 (Tex. 2004) (UDJA fees limited where claim concerns title clearing; not always applicable)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for reviewing summary judgments; de novo review)
Reynolds v. Murphy, 188 S.W.3d 252 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion in summary judgment context)
Turner, Collie & Braden v. Brookhollow, Inc., 642 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. 1982) (exception to relief extending to non-appealing parties when rights are interwoven)
Ex parte Elliot, 815 S.W.2d 251 (Tex. 1991) (procedural remand authority in appellate context)