Further, it should be noted that the road mentioned in The 1927 Deed was shown to be locatable and had been in its present location since before July 26, 1927. The “147 acres” call was unusable as a description. Since the acreage call was coupled with the words “more or less” as well as being coupled with a specific locatable description, the property description in the 1927 deed was neither uncertain nor indefinite. Rather, per the rule in Wooten , the acreage call was to be totally ignored. Whatever lands lay north and west of the road (301 acres) was properly described and was properly vested in the Carol S. Richey, Trustee of the Richey Living Trust – not the 147 acres attempted to be vested in her via the 2008 Boundary Stipulation , a void correction deed. There was no ambiguity nor indefiniteness in the property description. The property rule clearly set forth in Wooten was not followed. So, are deeds containing specific descriptions (metes and bounds) and an acreage call as well as the words “more or less” now to be considered ambiguous, especially where the acreage call in no way describes the acreage within the metes and bounds description? Is the deed description now ambiguous? Unknown. What is known is that only if the Wooten rule was ignored (overruled?) by The Court could the defendant oil companies have won. Otherwise, the 1927 deed and those additional deeds in Ellison’s chain of title would have been held to have adequately described the conveyed premises with the result that no deed in the chain of title (and their descriptions) could have been considered ambiguous and thus subject to correction by the parties. See Rule of Law No. 4 – Correction Deed Analysis .
in 2015 in Stribling) :
“...Nevertheless, we have never held that there was a clear intent for the general description to control when directly contrary metes and bounds clearly defined an area owned by the grantor.“ 23 In that case, as in Ellison , there were two descriptions of the conveyed lands: a general description setting forth the amount of acreage (“more or less”) the deed purported to encompass and a specific, locatable metes and bounds description of the tract conveyed . Simply put, by not ruling that the description in The 1927 Deed was unambiguous (and was indeed a conveyance as a matter of law) and thus not subject to correction, it appears that this case overrules Stribling . The 1927 Deed is unambiguous. It contains a clear, concise legal description that adequately describes the 301 acre tract at issue. It also contains an acreage description (147 acres) associated with the term “more or less”. Per Wooten and Stribling, the acreage call was to be ignored. It was not! Only by ignoring:
1. The real property rules of Texas governing what a conveyance was; and
2. The Wooten rule and
3. The Stribling rule
could The Court reach its conclusion and allow what is clearly a deed with an unambiguous description to be corrected. As a title examiner, it has been our profession’s understanding for decades, as affirmed in Stribling (supported also by our common law and statutory “priority or dignity of calls” rule), that acreage calls never control over a specific, locatable metes and bounds description. Never! Only by allowing the “subjective” intent of the [21] Stribling v. Millican DPC Partners, LP , 458 S.W. 3d 17 (Tex. 2015) [22] Concho Resources, Inc. et al. v. Ellison , 627 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. 2021) [23] Stribling v. Millican DPC Partners, LP , 458 S.W. 3d 17, 22 (Tex. 2015)
Rule of Law No. 3 – The Stribling Rule 21
The Ellison case was filed to determine what calls controlled in a deed’s description of the lands conveyed (metes and bounds versus acreage call) 22 To answer that question, The Court in Ellison, unlike the appeals court, did not rely on the Stribling case (which reiterated the property description rule that has been well settled since at least 1891 and was again confirmed by The Court
24
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