Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the trial court’s ruling that TRO-X, LP was entitled to a back-in percentage of the working interest in five mineral leases under which Anadarko Petroleum was lessee.TRO-X sued Anadarko, asserting claims for breach of contract and trespass to try title and seeking a declaratory judgment that the leases were top leases and therefore subject to TRO-X’s back-in interest. The trial court concluded that the leases were top leases, in which TRO-X retained a back-in interest, rather than new leases, which washed out TRO-X’s interest. In reversing, the court of appeals concluded that the leases were not top leases. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the leases at issue were not top leases subject to TRO-X’s back-in interest. View "TRO-X, L.P. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court’s decision that a homeowner violated certain restrictive covenants that limit tracts to residential purposes and single-family residents by operating a business on a residential tract and engaging in multi-family, short-term vacation rentals.The court of appeals concluded that the rental agreements contracted the residential-purpose limitation because the renters’ stays were merely temporary. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the unambiguous restrictive covenants did not restrict the homeowner from renting his single-family residence to occupants to use his home for a “residential purpose,” no matter how short-lived; and (2) therefore, the homeowner did not violate the restrictive covenants by entering into short-term vacation rental agreements. View "Tarr v. Timberwood Park Owners Ass’n, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue was the function of a clause in a real property deed that “saves and excepts” one-half of “all royalties from the production of oil, gas and/or other minerals that may be produced from the above described premises which are now owned by Grantor” when the deed does not disclose that the grantor does not own all of the royalty interests and does not except any other royalty interests from the conveyance.The trial court held that the deeds did not create a Duhig problem - where the grantor owns less than he purports to convey - by construing the clause as reserving for the grantor one-half of all royalties “which [were then] owned by Grantor.” The court of appeals determined that the clause created a Duhig problem, interpreting the clause as reserving for the grantor one-half of all royalties produced from the “above described premises which [were then] owned by Grantor.” The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) instead of reserving a one-half royalty interest for the grantors, the clause merely excepted that interest from the grant, and therefore, the deeds did not create a Duhig problem; and (2) each party with an interest in the tracts owned a one-quarter interest in the royalties produced. View "Perryman v. Spartan Texas Six Capital Partners, Ltd." on Justia Law

In this property-tax dispute regarding ownership of tangible personal property, the Supreme Court held (1) when, as in this case, an ownership correction to an appraisal roll does not increase the amount of property taxes owed for subject property in the year of the correction, an appraisal district’s chief appraiser has statutory authority under Tex. Code Ann. Prop. 25.25(b) to make such a correction even when the correction necessarily alters the taxing units’ expectation of who is liable for payment of property taxes; (2) an agreement under Tex. Code Ann. Prop. 1.111(e) may be rendered voidable if it is proven that it was induced by fraud; and (3) a purported owner challenging ownership on the appraisal roll is not entitled to attorney’s fees under Tex. Code Ann. Prop. 42.29. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals ruling that Willacy County Appraisal District lacked authority to change a property ownership determination under section 25.25(b), without reaching the issue of whether a section 1.111(e) agreement may be voided if it was induced by fraud, and remanding the case for a determination of attorney’s fees consistent with section 42.29. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings. View "Willacy County Appraisal District v. Sebastian Cotton & Grain, Ltd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals in this case requiring interpretation of retained-acreage provisions in oil-and-gas lease instruments, holding that acreage “included within the proration unit for each well…prescribed by field rules” refers to acreage set by the field rules, not acreage assigned by the operator.XOG Operating, LLC conveyed to Chesapeake Exploration Limited Partnership and Chesapeake Exploration, LLC (collectively, Chesapeake) its rights as lessee under four oil-and-gas leases in three sections of land. Under a retained-acreage provision, the assigned interest would revert to XOG after the primary term. As relevant to appeal, Chesapeake would retain for each well drilled the acreage “included within the proration…unit” “prescribed by field rules.” The acreage not retained by Chesapeake would revert to XOG on termination of the assignment. Chesapeake completed six wells during the primary term of the assignment, five of which were located in an area for which the Railroad Commission had promulgated field rules. The sixth well was located in an area for which there were no field rules. In Chesapeake’s view, it retained all of the assigned acreage. XOG sued Chesapeake to construe the retained-acreage provision. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision that the none of the land at issue reverted to XOG under the retained-acreage provision. View "XOG Operating, LLC v. Chesapeake Exploration Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

In this case involving competing claims to mineral-lease interests in two tracts of land, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court and court of appeals that the acreage Endeavor Energy Resources, LP and Endeavor Petroleum, LLC (collectively, Endeavor) retained under “retained-acreage clauses” in expired leases did not include the two tracts at issue.Discovery Operating, Inc., which drilled producing wells on the two subject tracts, claimed the mineral-lease interests based on leases acquired directly from the mineral-estate owners. Endeavor based its claim on prior leases with the same owners covering land that included the two subject tracts. Endeavor never drilled on the tracts, and Endeavor’s leases’ terms had expired. However, the leases included “retained-acreage clauses” providing that the leases would continue after they expired as to a certain number of acres associated with each of the wells Endeavor drilled on adjacent tracts. Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower courts, holding that “a governmental proration unit assigned to a well” refers to acreage assigned by the operator, not by field rules. View "Endeavor Energy Resources, LP v. Discovery Operating, Inc." on Justia Law

The common law rule against perpetuities does not invalidate a grantee’s future interest in the grantor’s reserved non-participating royalty interest (NPRI). In addition, section 91.402 of the Texas Natural Resources Code does not preclude a lessor’s common law claim for breach of contract.The court of appeals concluded that the rule did not bar the grantees’ future interest in the NPRI. The court, however, found that the reservation’s savings clause was ambiguous and remanded the case for a jury to determine the proper interpretation. The court held that section 91.402 does not bar a claim for breach of contract. Finally, while determining that several of the grantees’ claims failed as a matter of law, the court of appeals upheld the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees against the grantor pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a. The Supreme Court affirmed. View "ConocoPhillips Co. v. Koopmann" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court ruling that a will bequest of a tract of land unambiguously devised a fee-simple interest, rather than a life-estate interest, to the testator’s son, entitling the son to summary judgment. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment that the will granted the son a life estate and Petitioners the remainder interest in the property at issue, holding that the contested provision unambiguously conveyed a life estate. View "Knopf v. Gray" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the decisions of the trial court and court of appeals agreeing with Plaintiffs that a local water district owned an open-space area at Medina Lake the community had long considered public space for recreation and access to the lake. Plaintiffs, three families who owned lots on a peninsula at Medina Lake, filed suit after new neighbors, who claimed that they owned the open-space area and that the community members had no easements or other rights to use it, denied Plaintiffs access to the disputed area. The trial court declared that the new neighbors did not own the open-space. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) the new neighbors did not own the disputed area, and therefore, they had no standing to challenge Plaintiffs’ alleged easement over that area or authority to exclude Plaintiffs from the area; but (2) the court of appeals erred in upholding the award of attorney’s fees to the water district. View "Lance v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The lessee of certain mineral interests could not justifiably rely on extra-contractual representations by the lessor’s agent despite “red flags” and a negation-of-warranty clause in the sales documents explicitly placing the risk of title failure on the lessee.In its complaint, the lessee alleged breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Following a pre-trial conference, the trial court issued an order under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166(g) disposing of all of the lessee’s claims, concluding (1) the unambiguous terms of the letter of intent and leases precluded the lessee’s contract claim; and (2) as a matter of law, the lessee could not establish the justifiable-reliance element of its fraud and negligent-misrepresentation claims. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling regarding the contract claim but reversed on fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment, holding (1) justifiable reliance was an essential element of the lessee’s remaining causes of action; and (2) as a matter of law, the lessee could not show justifiable reliance. View "JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Orca Assets G.P., LLC" on Justia Law