Post-Execution Mineral Reservation Invalidated: O'Neal v. Ball and the Limits of Deed Alteration
Church trustees successfully challenged a mineral reservation that the grantor inserted into a deed after the notarial certificate showed he had already executed and acknowledged the instrument on April 20, 1953. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the grantor could not validly add the reservation post-execution and that the trustees' failure to discover the fraudulent insertion for six years was excused under the four-year statute of limitations where the deed was never physically delivered but remained with the abstract company.
Background and Parties
In this trespass to try title action, church trustees sued M.C. O'Neal to cancel a mineral reservation in a deed conveying property to the church. The dispute arose from a 1953 transaction in which O'Neal sold property to the church. The plaintiffs averred that at no time during negotiations for purchase nor at the time of sale was any mineral reservation mentioned, but that the grantor induced the scrivener, employed by an abstract company, to insert the reservation without notice to them.
The Fraudulent Insertion
The critical issue centered on when the mineral reservation was inserted into the deed. O'Neal testified that he examined the deed form on April 28, 1953, refused to sign it because it contained no mineral reservation, and did not execute it until May 1 when the reservation had been added. However, the notarial certificate recited that O'Neal acknowledged execution of the deed on April 20, 1953. As the court noted, O'Neal's own testimony "concedes the deed did not contain the provision on April 20 when the notarial certificate shows he had executed and acknowledged the instrument." The court held that the grantor could not validly insert a reservation of minerals in the deed after the date on which the notarial certificate showed he had executed and acknowledged it.
Constructive Notice and the Statute of Limitations
O'Neal defended on statute of limitations grounds, relying on Article 5529 of Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. The suit was filed in 1960, and the deed was executed in 1953, placing the action outside the four-year limitations period. However, the trustees established facts excusing their failure to act within the statutory period. The plaintiffs averred that they had not read the deed, which was never physically delivered to them but left at the abstract company, and that they did not discover the reservation until after the statutory four-year period had expired. The suit was commenced in January 1960, the year after the reservation was discovered in 1959. The court held that the suit was not barred by laches where no third-party rights had intervened.
Agency and Unauthorized Practice of Law
O'Neal argued that the abstract company was the church's agent and that actual notice to the company should be imputed to the church. The court rejected this argument, holding that the abstract company was not authorized to draft conveyances under Article 320a-1 of Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment cancelling the reservation, removing the cloud on the trustees' title, and vesting in them the title to oil, gas and minerals.