Wootton v. Melton, 53822
| Decision Date | 14 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 53822,53822,2 |
| Citation | 631 P.2d 1337 |
| Parties | 1981 OK CIV APP 24 Alton C. WOOTTON and Geneva Wootton, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Lela MELTON, a widow, and Thermo-Dyne, Inc., Appellees |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appeal from the District Court of Greer County; Charles M. Wilson, Trial Judge.
Action by grantees to cancel "clarification" deed filed by defendant, to quiet plaintiffs' title to all minerals, and to obtain order directing oil and gas lessee to pay suspended royalties to plaintiffs. Cross-petition to quiet title in defendant grantor to nearly one-half of minerals. Trial court cancelled "clarification" deed, quieted plaintiffs' title to all minerals, and found defendant grantor was entitled to receive one-half of oil and gas income for the rest of her life as beneficiary of trust. Grantees appeal trust holding and defendant grantor cross-appeals seeking "reformation" of original deed.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
James R. Moore, Hollis, for appellants.
Yonne P. McDaniel, Mangum, for appellee Lela Melton.
The principal issue to be decided is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding that the grantor of certain land is the beneficial owner of a life estate interest in one-half the income from oil and gas production from land conveyed years earlier. The trial court, in holding the 88-year-old grantor was entitled to such income, found "that by virtue of the acts of the Parties, a Trust has been created in which B. D. MELTON and LELA MELTON (defendant) are to receive 1/2 of the income from oil and gas produced from the mineral interest owned by ALTON C. WOOTTON and GENEVA WOOTTON ... (and) ... that said Trust Agreement is a Life Estate only and will terminate upon the death of LELA MELTON."
The orientational facts are largely undisputed. The Meltons sold 160 acres of Greer County, Oklahoma land to the Woottons in 1955. The recorded written contract of sale recited that it is "specifically understood that first parties (sellers) reserve from this sale an undivided one-half (1/2) of all the minerals in and under said premises ...."
In 1961, Alton Wootton said, B. D. Melton was redoing his house and approached him wanting to know if he, Wootton, could pay off early the balance due under the contract. To induce a favorable response, said Wootton, Melton agreed to relinquish his contractual rights to half the minerals. Wootton told the inquirer that he thought he could borrow the necessary money from the bank and promised to try. He got the needed funds and on December 5, 1961, he and his wife met with the Meltons in the office of the Meltons' lawyer the same one who represents Mrs. Melton in this proceeding. Apparently to determine how the deed should be drawn, the lawyer inquired about the minerals reserved in the contract. Said Melton to his lawyer: "The minerals do go with the place." Accordingly, the lawyer prepared a deed that conveyed all of the Meltons' interest in the land and that did not reserve any mineral interest. Both Meltons signed it and it was filed of record the same day.
Alton Wootton also testified that Melton had asked him earlier if he, Wootton, would let him have half of the lease bonus money in the event Wootton leased during Melton's lifetime. Wootton said he would and thereafter leased it twice. The first time he divided the lease bonus with Melton and the next time he divided it with his widow as a gesture of appreciation for the fact that Melton had been good to him.
Thus the matter laid until March 2, 1977, when Mrs. Melton's lawyer prepared a warranty deed in which "Lela Melton, a widow," purported to convey the land in question to the Woottons, reserving nearly a half interest in the minerals. Lela signed the deed, her lawyer acknowledged it, and it was filed of record.
What undoubtedly provoked this action was the fact that defendant Thermo-Dyne, Inc., had obtained an oil and gas lease on the property in 1976 and drilled a producing well. Because of these conflicting mineral interest claims, the lessee held the royalty proceeds in suspense. The Woottons, consequently, brought this action in January 1978 asking the court to cancel the 1977 Melton deed, quiet their title to the minerals, and direct the lessee to pay all the royalty to them. Lela Melton answered with a denial and a cross-petition in which she admitted she executed the 1961 warranty deed conveying all her interest in subject land, but alleging she, in the earlier contract of sale, reserved a half interest in the minerals and that "plaintiffs acknowledged and recognized said mineral interest ... at all times from the date of (the) contract until about January, 1977." It was about this time, she alleged, that she became aware that the Woottons were claiming all the mineral interest and, consequently, she made, executed and filed "a clarification deed" of record on March 2, 1977. She asked the court to quiet her title to nearly half the minerals.
The case was tried on April 25, 1979. After hearing the evidence, the trial court: (1) cancelled the "clarification" deed and quieted the Woottons' title to all the minerals; and (2) ordered that half the oil and gas royalty be paid to Lela Melton for the rest of her life based on the finding of a trust having been established by the
The Woottons contend the court should have found that: (1) relief to Lela Melton was barred by the statute of limitations; (2) there was no pleaded nor proved foundation for the trust established; and (3) the Woottons were entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee.
Lela Melton, on the other hand, says the court should have reformed the 1961 deed by inserting a clause reserving half the minerals in her.
The trial court's cancellation of the beclouding and slanderous "clarification" deed inappropriately filed by Lela Melton in 1977 was legally, equitably, and factually correct. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mashburn v. Arzate (In re Arzate)
...disclosing an intention that the beneficial interest was not to be enjoyed by the legal title holder." (citing Wootton v. Melton , 631 P.2d 1337, 1341 (Okla. Civ. App.1981) ). It is fundamental that a resulting trust requires an intent to retain a beneficial interest. Here, both the Debtor ......
-
Howell Petroleum Corp. v. Samson Resources Co.
...v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 688 P.2d 59, 62 (Okla.1984); Goodwin v. Beard, 434 P.2d 192, 196 (Okla.1967); Wootton v. Melton, 631 P.2d 1337, 1341 (Okla.Ct.App.1981); it is not itself a substantive right. See generally G. Bogert & G. Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees Sec. 471 (......
-
Gaskins v. Texon, LP
...of legal title to property did not intend for the beneficial interest to be enjoyed by the grantee of the legal title. See Wootton, 1981 OK CIV APP 24, 631 P.2d 1337. 6. The parties in the present case did not participate in the bankruptcy proceedings. 7. “The 1988 Act was intended to guara......
-
Gaskins v. Texon, LP
...of legal title to property did not intend for the beneficial interest to be enjoyed by the grantee of the legal title. See Wootton, 1981 OK CIV APP 24, 631 P.2d 1337. 6. The parties in the present case did not participate in the bankruptcy proceedings. 7. "The 1988 Act was intended to guara......