effective correction deed retroactively changing an unambiguous prior legal description. Our title examination standard (§2.20) suggests , as a practical matter for title examination and title opinion purposes, that all current owners of interests in the subject property conveyed in the prior deed should sign – at the same time and in the same instrument - any attempted retroactive change in the prior conveyance. As Ellison’s briefing and Motion for Rehearing point out, there were still outstanding undivided leasehold ownership interests of record in Ellison’s Pilon Leases at the time of the execution of the 2008 Boundary Stipulation that were never involved in the Stipulation or the 2008 Samson Letter. That alone would negate any application of the practical suggested title curative action in §2.20 of the Title Standards. And Samson was, as a matter of law, on notice of the existence of those outstanding and uninvolved partial ownership interests at the time of the 2008 Boundary Stipulation, as would be any title examiner conducting a title examination for either The 1927 Deed Tract or the Remainder Tract.
a deed, what did the Court declare it to be? The Court holds the 2008 Boundary Stipulation to be a “boundary stipulation” and NOT a deed. And, as indicated above, the term “boundary stipulation” has had no ascribed legal meaning in Texas jurisprudence nor has it ever been mentioned in any Texas case (other than Ellison) that the author could locate. The Court holds several different things in its opinion concerning the 2008 Boundary Stipulation/ October 16, 2008 Letter (of Intent):
“… We hold that the boundary stipulation
is valid and that the defendants conclusively established their ratification defense.” 26
“…while Concho contends that the boundary stipulation is enforceable between the parties according to its terms. Alternatively, Concho asserts that the stipulation is effective as a conveyance. We agree with Concho’s primary argument and do not address its alternative argument.” 27 “…Because we hold that the stipulation was not void, we need not address whether a contrary holding would summarily foreclose Concho’s ratification defense.” 28 “…Unlike correction deeds, which are governed by Texas Property Code sections 5.027- .030, the boundary stipulation does not purport to replace either the 1927 deed or the 1930 deed. … It is an agreement between owners of adjacent property regarding the location of the boundary between their tracts, and nothing in the statutory provisions governing correction deeds affects the validity of such an agreement.” 29 Title practitioners know that an instrument such as the 2008 Boundary Stipulation is an attempt to make a retroactive change to the description [26] Concho Resources, Inc. et al. v. Ellison, 627 S.W.3d. 226, 228 (Tex. 2021) [27] Concho Resources, Inc. et al. v. Ellison, 627 S.W.3d. 226, 234 (Tex. 2021) (emphasis added) [28] Concho Resources, Inc. et al. v. Ellison, 627 S.W.3d. 226, 234 (Tex. 2021) (FN 10) [29] Concho Resources, Inc. et al. v. Ellison, 627 S.W.3d. 226, 235 (Tex. 2021)
Rule of Law No. 5 – Ratification of a Void
Instrument
Before analyzing the specific content of the October 16, 2008 Letter (Exhibit “C”), it is first necessary to address the application of the doctrine of ratification of VOID deeds. The October 16, 2008 Letter requested that Mr. Ellison: “Please signify your acceptance of the description of the Richey 147 acre tract as set out in the stipulation (your leasehold) by signing both copies of this letter in the space provided below and return one copy to my attention in the enclosed self-addressed envelope.” While this paper will address the elements of ratification below, for the purposes of this subsection only, it will be assumed arguendo that the October 16, 2008 Letter was an effective ratification. But ratification of what?
If the 2008 Boundary Stipulation was not
27
G rowth T hrough E ducat i on - J uly / A ugus t / S ept ember 2024
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease