Eastland Court Reverses Title Judgment Based on Trespass-to-Try-Title Pleading Defects for Nonpossessory Mineral Interests
The Eastland Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a trial court's final judgment in a complex royalty interest dispute, holding that the judgment was not supported by the pleadings of the successors to a later-recorded deed who had asserted only trespass-to-try-title claims. The decision arose from an interpleader action involving competing claims to royalty interests in Glasscock County property, all tracing back to a common predecessor-in-interest who executed two deeds conveying overlapping interests but recorded them in the opposite order.
Background and Parties
Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., as operator of oil and gas wells in Glasscock County, brought an interpleader action against multiple purported owners of royalty interests in minerals and oil and gas across multiple sections of property. The dispute centered on ownership of royalty interests stemming from conveyances in which a common predecessor-in-interest purported to convey some of the same interests in two separate deeds that were recorded in the opposite order from which they were executed. Driver Production, L.P. and Graham Sons Minerals, LLC intervened as operators of a portion of the property and sought declaratory relief on the proper interpretation of the competing deeds.
The 118th District Court of Glasscock County, through a series of partial summary judgment motions that relied on one another and were incorporated into its final ruling, found that the later-recorded deed prevailed over the first-recorded deed, rejected affirmative defenses raised by successors to the first-recorded deed against trespass-to-try-title claims, dismissed claims by a successor to the later-recorded deed against intervening operators, and awarded title to various interests claimed by successors to the later-recorded deed. Multiple successors to the first-recorded deed appealed separately.
The Court's Holdings
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court's final judgment was not supported by the pleadings of or relief requested by successors to the later-recorded deed. The court found that one successor to the later-recorded deed, who sought declaratory relief in addition to a trespass-to-try-title claim, was bound by the positions of other successors to the later-recorded deed that relied only on trespass-to-try-title claims, and thus the final judgment was not supported by the pleadings for such successor.
The court also held that another successor to the later-recorded deed, who entered the action after entry of flawed orders and attempted to avoid incorporating those orders into its attempt to seek title, was similarly bound by the positions of other successors to the later-recorded deed, and thus the final judgment was not supported by the pleadings for such successor.
Standing and Adversity Issues
The court determined that one successor to the first-recorded deed had no adversity with a successor to the later-recorded deed whose purported interest was in a portion of property to which the successor to the first-recorded deed had no claim. Accordingly, that successor to the first-recorded deed had no basis to challenge the final judgment in favor of the successor to the later-recorded deed.
Harmless Error Analysis
The court held that no exceptions to excuse admitted error applied to the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the operators of oil and gas wells on claims of trespass to try title and declaratory judgment by a successor to the later-recorded deed. The error in resolving both of the successor's claims despite a prayer for relief only referencing the trespass-to-try-title claim was not harmless.
Disposition and Rehearing
The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case. On rehearing, the court granted the parties' joint motion to dismiss the appeal as it related to certain purported owners and declined to withdraw its original opinion.