Gaskins v. Navigator Oil & Minerals, Inc.
| Docket Number | 11-21-00201-CV |
| Decision Date | 08 June 2023 |
| Citation | 670 S.W.3d 391 |
| Parties | Van Martin GASKINS, TRUSTEE OF the VAN MARTIN GASKINS FAMILY TRUST; Kelly Joe Gaskins, Trustee of the Kelly Joe Gaskins Family Trust; and Kayla Gaskins McDonnell, Trustee of the Kayla Gaskins McDonnell Family Trust, Appellants v. NAVIGATOR OIL & MINERALS, INC.; Warrior Exploration, LLC; Patrick Banaise Blake; Mitchell C. Meyers; Michael J. Daniel ; Spencer Evans Blake; Riley Blake Leader; and Patricia Dalby Matthies, Appellees |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Christopher Knight, Karen Precella, 301 Commerce St., Suite 2600, Fort Worth, TX 76102, Brandy R. Manning, 1717 Man St., Suite 4200, Dallas, TX 75201, James Barnett Jr., 14825 Saint Marys Ln, Suite 101, Houston, TX 77075, Brandon Stendara, 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3800, Dallas, TX 75201, Fred Eric Wahrlich, 700 Milam St., Suite 2700, Houston, TX 77002, for appellant.
Derek L. Montgomery, Elizabeth Geary-Hill, William B. Burford, Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP, 500 Illinois, Suite 800, Midland, TX 79701, for appellee.
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
In this appeal we must (1) construe the provisions of a correction deed that was executed in 1960 and (2) decide what royalty interest amounts were reserved for the grantor and what amounts were conveyed to the grantees under the deed.
At one time, J.S. Clay owned the entire mineral interest in the subject property. In the 1950s, Clay and his family conveyed a 20/160 royalty interest in the property to third parties who are not involved in the underlying suit. The core of the parties’ dispute on appeal focuses on the extent to which the remaining 140/160 royalty interest in the property was divided in a 1960 conveyance between Clay and Joe Mac and LaVerne Gaskins. Appellees, the Navigator parties, are Clay's successors-in-interest; Appellants, the Gaskins trustees, are successors-in-interest to Joe Mac and LaVerne.
It is undisputed that the original general warranty deed equally divided the remaining 140/160 royalty interest to Clay (70/160) and Joe Mac and LaVerne (70/160). But a correction deed was executed soon thereafter that changed certain language and interests that were conveyed in the original deed. The parties to this appeal contest the validity of the correction deed and its effect on the division of the remaining 140/160 royalty interest—whether it changed the division to 90/160 for Clay and 50/160 for Joe Mac and LaVerne, as Appellees urge, or retained the original equal division of 70/160 to each, as Appellants contend.
Appellees filed suit against Appellants and asserted claims for declaratory relief and to quiet title. Appellants answered and filed a counterclaim in which they asserted claims for declaratory relief, to quiet title, trespass to try title, and, alternatively, breach of warranty of title. Appellees also asserted various affirmative defenses to Appellants’ counterclaims. After extensive discovery, Appellants filed a motion for partial summary judgment, and Appellees filed a traditional and no-evidence cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted Appellees’ motion, denied Appellants’ motion, and overruled all evidentiary objections raised by the parties.
In six sub-issues, Appellants contend that the trial court erred when it granted Appellees’ motions for summary judgment and denied Appellants’ motion because (1) both the original deed and the correction deed consistently convey a 70/160 royalty interest to the Gaskins; (2) the correction deed is void and invalid; (3) Appellees are estopped from claiming a royalty interest greater than 70/160; (4) Appellees failed to defeat Appellants’ counterclaims as a matter of law; (5) Appellees failed to establish any affirmative defenses as a matter of law; and (6) for all of these reasons, the trial court erred when it entered declarations and quieted title in favor of Appellees and refused to enter declarations and quiet title in favor of Appellants.
We hold that the Correction Deed (1) is valid and enforceable, (2) unambiguously conveyed a 70/160 royalty interest to Joe Mac and LaVerne, and (3) excepted and reserved a total royalty interest of 90/160 unto Clay and his heirs and successors, which includes the previously conveyed 20/160 royalty interest that is owned by unrelated third parties. We further hold that Appellants’ trespass-to-try-title counterclaim fails as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm in part, and we reverse and render in part.
Clay owned certain property1 and mineral rights in Howard County which included a 140/160 royalty interest in the property. On March 23, 1960, by General Warranty Deed and consistent with the Contract for Sale, Clay conveyed to Joe Mac and LaVerne the surface and mineral estate, a one-half interest in the executory rights and bonuses, and a "70/160ths interest in royalty" in the property. Clay, as grantor, reserved and retained for himself, and his heirs and successors, one-half of his original 140/160 royalty interest—the remaining 70/160 royalty interest. Like the Contract for Sale, the March 23, 1960 original deed also acknowledged, and the parties concede on appeal, that Clay had previously conveyed 20/160 of the royalty interests in the subject property to unrelated third parties.
Twenty-three days later, Clay and Joe Mac signed and recorded a Correction Deed. The purpose of the Correction Deed was to clarify the scope of the interests conveyed in the original deed. According to Appellees, the original deed (1) erroneously conveyed only one-half of the executive rights to Joe Mac and LaVerne, (2) erroneously failed to except and reserve for Clay, and his heirs and successors, a 90/160 royalty interest, and (3) failed to separately except and reserve the 20/160 royalty interest that had been previously conveyed to certain unrelated third parties. Hence, in addition to clarifying the scope of the conveyed interests, the Correction Deed was executed to correct these errors.
The Correction Deed conveyed to Joe Mac and LaVerne "all" of Clay's interests in the property; however, it also included the following reservation:
LaVerne did not sign the Correction Deed. However, the Correction Deed recites that Joe Mac, by his signature, accepted the changes "on behalf of the Grantees " (which included LaVerne) and acknowledged that he and LaVerne each agreed to the Correction Deed's terms (emphasis added).
Two years later, Clay died testate. Since Clay's passing, the royalty interests owned by Clay, Joe Mac, and LaVerne were transferred to their respective heirs through a series of bequests and devises.
Appellees traced their chain of title to Clay's estate. In his will, Clay bequeathed all his property to his sister, Mattie Coker. During Clay's probate proceedings, an inventory of Clay's estate was filed which listed among his assets a "70/160th of the royalty" in the subject property. When Mattie died, she bequeathed "all" her property to her children, Margaret Dalby and James Coker—each inherited one-half of Clay's royalty interest, whatever it was at the time. James died and one-half of his property was devised equally to his daughter, Patricia Coker, and to his wife, Camelia Coker. Thus, Patricia and Camelia each received one-quarter of Clay's royalty interest, whatever it was at the time. When Margaret died, her real estate was devised to Pat Matthies, thus leaving Matthies one-half of Clay's royalty interest.
Appellees acquired Patricia and Camelia's royalty interests. As part of their due diligence before purchasing Patricia and Camelia's royalty interests, representatives for Navigator Oil and Minerals, Inc. reviewed public documents and probate records concerning Clay's estate and the Cokers’ chain of title. In his report, Navigator's agent preliminarily concluded that Clay held a 90/160 royalty interest in the property, but the report also recognized that further investigation into Clay's probate proceedings was necessary to accurately determine the disposition of his estate. Navigator's agent filed the records from Clay's probate proceedings, including the inventory that listed Clay's royalty interest in the property as being 70/160, in Howard County as part of Navigator's chain of title. One day before purchasing the Cokers’ royalty interests, Navigator sent them a letter confirming their agreement and stating Navigator's intention to assist in resolving certain unpaid royalties for the "Gaskins 21 #3 well."
When Navigator purchased the Cokers’ royalty interests, which combined were equal to one-half of Clay's royalty interests, Navigator attached an exhibit to the agreement that indicated the Cokers purportedly owned a 45/160 royalty interest in the property. The other half of Clay's royalty interest remained with Matthies. Appellees contend that if the Cokers’ combined one-half interest and Matthies’ one-half interest are each equal to a 45/160 royalty interest, the total of their...
To continue reading
Request your trial