Duvall v. Carr-Pool
| Decision Date | 14 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. CV–16–267,CV–16–267 |
| Citation | Duvall v. Carr-Pool, 509 S.W.3d 661 (Ark. App. 2016) |
| Parties | Jerry D. DUVALL, Wanda Duvall, R.D. Williams & Company and XTO Energy Inc., Appellants v. Vicki E. CARR–POOL As Trustee of the TRV Irrevocable Trust, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Gordon & Caruth, PLC, by: Ben Caruth and Jeannie L. Denniston, for appellants.
Cullen & Co., PLLC, by: Tim Cullen, for appellee.
This is the second time this case is before us on appeal.In the first appeal, our court dismissed for lack of a final order.Duvall v. Carr–Pool , 2016 Ark. App. 118, 2016 WL 740535.We now have a final order; appellants Jerry and Wanda Duvall(Duvall) have again appealed the Conway County Circuit Court's decision to quiet title to mineral rights (the "mineral rights") in appelleeVicki Carr–Pool, as trustee of the TRV Irrevocable Trust (Carr–Pool), in the following real property (the "real property") in Conway County, Arkansas, to wit:
The Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NE1/4NW1/4) of Section 33, Township 8 North, Range 17 West, except 10 acres in the Southwest corner thereof, conveying 30 acres, more or less.
We affirm the trial court's decision to quiet title to the mineral rights in Carr–Pool, but we do so on a different basis than determined by the trial court.
In April 2013, Carr–Pool filed a petition to quiet title in the mineral rights and for a declaratory judgment that Duvall owns only the surface rights to the real property.Duvall resisted her petition.Prior to trial, the parties jointly stipulated the following facts concerning the chain of title and curative-title measures:
At trial, Carr–Pool testified that the only issue to be litigated was who owned the mineral rights; she acknowledged that Duvall owned the surface rights to the real property.She explained that on December 12, 1980, Mayne and Matilda Hawkins conveyed the mineral rights to themselves and Ruby Hawkins as joint tenants with right of survivorship; Mayne died in January 1984; Matilda died in September 1990; Ruby, as sole survivor, conveyed the mineral rights to the Ruby Hawkins Cargile Trust in March 1988; Ruby died intestate in October 2006; and Carr–Pool's mother, Bettye Carr, inherited Ruby's estate.Carr–Pool explained that her mother, as successor trustee of the trust, conveyed the mineral interests to herself in a mineral deed dated January 22, 2007, and then, on February 12, 2007, her mother conveyed the mineral rights by quitclaim deed to the Bettye S. Carr Revocable Trust; then, a warranty deed transferred the mineral rights to the TRV Irrevocable Trust, of which Carr–Pool is the trustee.Carr–Pool stated that since the 1974 deed from the Hawkinses to Duvall, she and her predecessors in title had entered into oil-and-gas leases for the mineral rights in 1981, 1988, 1994, and 2005, and there had never been any objection to any of the leases.Carr–Pool testified she contacted XTO in August 2012 because she knew it had drilled on the real property, and she had not received any royalty payments; she learned there was language in the 1974 deed that was being questioned by XTO, and she needed to obtain a stipulation of interest from Duvall.It was Carr–Pool's testimony that when she called Duvall, he told her he was a greedy person and if he could get the minerals, he would do it.Duvall never signed the stipulation Carr–Pool sent to him.
Sharon Kindy, a petroleum landman who worked for R.D. Williams and Company, testified she was familiar with the real property because XTO sent her a title opinion on the property and asked her to do curative work on any title defects; specifically, she was asked to obtain a stipulation of interest because, according to the title opinion, the deed in Duvall's name stated that all of the minerals had been previously reserved or conveyed, and XTO wanted to know exactly what that meant, how it was being taken, and who was claiming the property.Kindy said she contacted Duvall to see if he was claiming the mineral rights; when she explained why she was calling, he told her he"guessed"he would sign it because the Hawkinses had been good to him and had financed the real property for him when he did not have the money to pay for the real property.Kindy said Duvall did not say he claimed the mineral rights, but he also did not say he didn't claim them.Kindy said after she spoke with Duvall, he informed her he would be filing a quiet-title suit and would not sign a disclaimer of interest.
Jerry Duvall testified that the language "it being understood that all oil, gas, and other minerals in and under or that may be produced from said land have been previously reserved or conveyed" was in his 1974 deed from the Hawkinses, and he made no objection at that time; he said there was not much he could say when he bought a piece of property that was subject to previous reservations.He stated he did not do a title search until after Sharon Kindy had contacted him, and he saw where Cargile had reserved the mineral rights, but he also said he saw that when Cargile sold the real...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Faughn v. Kennedy
..., 2019 Ark. App. 448, 588 S.W.3d 48 ; Kiswire Pine Bluff, Inc. v. Segars , 2018 Ark. App. 296, 549 S.W.3d 410 ; Duvall v. Carr-Pool , 2016 Ark. App. 611, 509 S.W.3d 661 ; Schermerhorn v. State , 2016 Ark. App. 395, 500 S.W.3d 181. In addition, our supreme court has looked to the "complaint ......
-
Mehaffy v. Clark
...expressed by the language of the deed, when not contrary to settled principles of law and rules of property. Duvall v. Carr-Pool , 2016 Ark. App. 611, at 9–10, 509 S.W.3d 661, 667. We will resort to the rules of construction only when the language of the deed is ambiguous, uncertain, or dou......
-
Acad., Inc. v. Paradigm Bldg., LLC
...on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that an error has been committed. Duvall v. Carr–Pool , 2016 Ark. App. 611, 509 S.W.3d 661, 2016 WL 7233859. We give due deference to the trial court's superior ability to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the......
-
Mehaffy v. Clark
...expressed by the language of the deed, when not contrary to settled principles of law and rules of property. Duvall v. Carr-Pool , 2016 Ark. App. 611, at 9–10, 509 S.W.3d 661, 667. We will resort to the rules of construction only when the language of the deed is ambiguous, uncertain, or dou......
-
LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN 2017 AFFECTING THE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
...2017). [14] An issue discussed but left undecided by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Haynes v. Metcalf, 759 S.W.2d 542 (Ark. 1988). [15] 509 S.W.3d 661 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). [16] Senate Bill No. 724; Stats. 2017, Chapter 652. [17] Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 3203(a). [18] "Production facility" is d......