Legal
Updates Articles are not intended to be and should not be relied upon as legal advice or to establish any kind of an attorney-client relationship with the author.
Marsha Ellison, D/B/A Ellison Lease Operating v. Three Rivers Acquisition LLC., et al. 1 Seven Failures by the Texas Supreme Court to Follow Stare Decisis and the Result Is - ??? By Terry E. Hogwood, Attorney
Texas
Until 2008, no one in the chain of title ever complained about the description of the lands at issue (301 acres) as being ambiguous or unlocatable. In fact, until that date, all owners in the chain of title knew that this description covered and pertained to 301 acres. The instant litigation was supposedly an inquiry into the ownership of this 301 acre tract via trespass to try title parameters. At no time during the litigation did anyone in the chain of title or otherwise (any party or any court) ever deny that vested legal title to the 301 acre tract (including the disputed 154 acre tract) was in Mrs. Ellison. At no point in the litigation did any of the oil companies claim that the description was ambiguous and/or not locatable on the ground. In fact, there was uncontested testimony that the location of the referenced road was locatable and that the pathway of the road had never moved SINCE BEFORE 1927.
The following is a very limited statement of facts underlying the decision in the Ellison case. For purposes of this paper, in addition to the following general fact statement, under the discussion of each rule of law potentially overruled by the Texas Supreme Court (“The Court”) and identified herein, the specific facts under the pertinent section necessary for the reader to understand the significance of The Court’s decision on that particular rule of law will be set forth.
What are the Ellison Case Facts?
Common title to the land at issue in the case (and other lands) originated with a deed dated July 26, 1927 from W. M. Hemphill, Trustee by E. S. Briant, Indep. Exec. of the Estate of J.D. Sugg, dec’d to the Noelkes as part of a land swap (Vol./ Pg 17/18, Deed Records of Irion County, Texas) (“The 1927 Deed”). The 1927 Deed contained the following tract description language identifying the lands at issue: “Second Tract: All of Survey 1, Block 6, H. & T.C. Ry. Co. lands located North and West of the public road which now runs across the corner of said Survey, containing 147 acres, more or less.” (emphasis added) 2 A pictorial representation of this description is found as Exhibit “A” to this paper. It reflects the lands conveyed by this deed and located according to this description actually contains 301 acres (area outlined in blue).
Somehow, some way, Samson’s landman,
Tim Reece, was allowed to testify to a past conversation(s) with a then (at the time of trial)
[1] (“ Ellison Case”) Ellison v. Samson Res. Co ., 23-0267 (Tex. Dec 15, 2023) Concho Resources, Inc. et al. v. Ellison , 627 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. 2021) Ellison v. Three Rivers Acquisition LLC , 609 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. App. - 2019) Ellison v. Samson Res. Co ., 13-17-00046-CV (Tex. App. Feb 10, 2022) Ellison v. Three Rivers Acquisition LLC , 13-17-00046-CV (Tex. App. Dec 15, 2022) [2] Concho Resources, Inc. et al. v. Ellison , 627 S.W.3d 226, 228 (Tex. 2021)
18
N at i onal A ssociation of D i v i s i on O rder A nalys t s
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease