Background and Transaction History

This dispute arose from a complex chain of title originating in a 1917 agreement between USIR, a real estate investment company, and Edward Mattison for development of minerals on 2,092.08 acres in Live Oak County, Texas. Under that agreement, USIR would convey to Mattison the surface estate and three-quarters of the mineral interests for $209,208 in monthly installments. Mattison subsequently conveyed portions of the acreage to Frederick H. Cosgrove and Richard Canning, including Tract 69 which was conveyed to Canning by warranty deed in December 1919. It is undisputed that Mattison never purchased the entire 2,092.08-acre tract from USIR.

In 1922, Cosgrove executed a deed to Robert S. Alcott (the "Alcott Deed") purporting to convey "Acre Eight (8) in Tract Sixty-nine (69)" along with "an undivided interest in an undivided one-half of any and all oil, gas or minerals that may be found to be in, under or upon any part of" the entire 2,092.08 acres. The appellees, 1893 Oil and Gas, Ltd. and ELP2 Minerals, Ltd., subsequently acquired mineral interests through Special Warranty Mineral Deeds and claimed exclusive and sole rights to the mineral interests through several documents filed in the Live Oak County records.

The Procedural Posture

Appellants Robert S. Alcott III, et al. appealed a summary judgment in favor of appellees. The appellants raised four issues on appeal: that the trial court should have denied appellees' motion for summary judgment (issues one and two), granted their motion for summary judgment (issue three), and improperly granted special exceptions and objections to appellants' motion for summary judgment (issue four).

Standard of Review

The court applied the standard that when there are competing motions for traditional summary judgment, each party bears the burden of establishing that there are no issues of material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When the trial court grants one motion and denies the other, the reviewing court must determine all questions presented and render the judgment that the trial court should have rendered. Evidence favorable to the nonmovant is taken as true in deciding whether there is a disputed issue of material fact, and all reasonable inferences must be resolved in favor of the nonmovant.

The Court's Ruling

The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the appellees. The court noted the undisputed fact that Cosgrove never held title to the entire 2,092.08 acres when he executed the Alcott Deed, yet the deed purported to convey mineral interests across that entire tract. The Texas Supreme Court denied review on May 1, 2026.