Articles Posted in Recent Cases

Another case interpreting a royalty reservation in an old conveyance has been decided by the 11th Court of Appeals in Eastland: Boren Descendants and Mabee Descendants v. Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd., two consolidated appeals, Nos. 11-22-00365-CV and 11-23-00001-CV. This is the first skirmish in a fight that will undoubtedly end up in the Texas Supreme Court.

In 1933, Midland Farms Company sold to J.E. Mabee 60,000 acres of land in Andrews and Martin Counties. The deed reserves “an undivided one-fourth (1/4th) of the usual one eighth (1/8th) royalty.” The Boren and Mabee descendants are the successors-in-interest of J.E. Mabee in the minerals under this 60,000 acres. Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. is the successor to Midland Farms Company and owner of the reserved royalty. Fasken is also the operator of wells on the 60,000 acres.

Fasken sued the Boren and Mabee descendants in 2019, contending that the 1933 deed reserved a floating 1/4th of the royalty. The Boren and Mabee descendants raised several affirmative defenses, including waiver, division order estoppel/estoppel by contract, judicial estoppel, estoppel by deed, limitations, ratification and/or quasi-estoppel, and presumed grant. The trial court sided with Fasken on construction of the royalty reservation and entered partial summary judgment denying the Boren and Mabee affirmative defenses, leaving only the question of damages. The judge suggested, and the parties agreed, to appeal the legal issues in both cases. The Eastland Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s rulings and remanded the cases.

In Mitchell v. Map Resources, the Texas Supreme Court described the constitutional right of due process as follows:

The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution prevents the government from depriving a person of his or her “property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; see also Tex. Const. art. I, § 19 (“No citizen of this State shall be deprived of … property … except by the due course of the law of the land.”).⁷ It is well settled that these words “require that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by *189 notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane, 339 U.S. at 313, 70 S.Ct. 652. Notice must be “reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them the opportunity to present their objections.” Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 84, 108 S.Ct. 896, 99 L.Ed.2d 75 (1988) (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314, 70 S.Ct. 652).⁸

Gill v. Hill, 688 S.W.3d 863, decided by the Texas Supreme Court in January, grows out of a very similar set of facts the court reviewed in Mitchell v. Map Resources in 2022.

Unitex WI, LLC v. CT Land and Cattle Co., decided by the Amarillo Court of Appeals, petition for review pending in Texas Supreme Court.

CT Land and Cattle owns the surface estate of 4,000 acres in Scurry and Kent Counties. The land is subject to an oil and gas lease signed in 1948 to Humble Oil & Refining Company. Unitex is the operator of some 200 wells on the property. The oil and gas lease provides: “When required by Lessor, Lessee will bury all pipelines below ordinary plow depth.” Multiple pipelines serving those wells lie on the surface of the land.

CT Land wrote Unitex, requesting that all pipelines be buried, per the burial covenant in the lease. Unitex refused; CT Land sued; and the district court in Lubbock County entered an order requiring Unitex to bury its lines. Unitex appealed.

In re Dallas County, Texas and Marian Brown, in her official capacity as Dallas County Sheriff, No. 24-0426, Texas Supreme Court, filed May 23, 2024.

In 2023 the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 1045. The bill creates a new system of “business courts” having jurisdiction of high-stakes business cases. Notably, the judges of these new trial courts are not elected but are appointed by the Governor. The bill also creates a new 15th Court of Appeals to hear appeals of such cases, as well as any case against the State, state agencies and state officials.  This is the first case to challenge the constitutionality of SB 1045. Before the bill, suits against the State were filed in Austin and appeals went to the 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin.

Dallas County and others sued members of the Health and Human Services Commission in Travis County, alleging that HHSC has failed to timely transfer inmates from the Dallas County jail to state hospitals who have been held not competent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, as required by law. The trial court denied the defendants’ plea to the jurisdiction, and defendants appealed that ruling to the Austin Court of Appeals. The defendants filed a statement in that court indicating that, on September 1, 2024 (when the 15th Court of Appeals becomes effective), the appeal would be automatically transferred to the new 15th Court created by SB 1045, because the suit involves a case against state officials.

Yesterday the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in DeVillier et al. v. Texas, No. 22-913, allowing 120 landowners to proceed with their takings claims against the State.

I wrote about this case when the Court agreed to hear it.

The Summary of facts in the Court’s Syllabus describes the issue: