and affirmed the “2-prong” test/requirements for creating “agreements to establish an uncertain boundary line” in a legally-effective manner and consistent with (and so as not to violate) our existing property rules and title law principles. In that vein, Concho cited/highlighted the Gulf Oil Corp . case as the authority for the validity of the written/executed 2008 Boundary Stipulation in the instant case as an “agreement to establish” an “uncertain” common boundary. The Court only required that the adjoining landowners proclaim themselves to be subjectively “uncertain” about their boundary identity/location, without cross- examination or considering contradictory evidence of the honesty, genuineness, or reasonableness of that subjective “belief” or their actual knowledge otherwise. However, for an “agreement to establish an uncertain boundary” to be valid, the Gulf Oil Corp. case prescribed a 2-part test , declaring: “The existence of [boundary] uncertainty... is essential to the validity of such [“agreements to establish]…It is enough [for validity] that the location of the [boundary] line has [first] not been definitely [objectively] established and [second] is [subjectively] doubtful or uncertain.” 35 Gulf Oil Corp. cited 25+ cases that fleshed out and confirmed the first prong of the test requirement (“location of the boundary line has not been definitely-established”) was determined on an objective (not subjective) basis by applying rules of property/title law to the facts. It cannot be stated enough that the original description in The 1927 deed is objectively locatable and not indefinite nor ambiguous. A suit under the facts in this case to establish an uncertain boundary would not lie under Texas real property law until this case was decided. The requirement that it first be objectively proved that the boundary line is uncertain/unlocatable has been eliminated. Stare decisis thwarted again. Had Texas rules of real property been followed, the 2008 Boundary Stipulation would have been found to be an impermissible attempt to determine an uncertain boundary line since the boundary line was objectively locatable.
Rule of Law No. 7 – Defendant’s Failure to Prove Standing to Sue for Breach of Contract Concho sued for and obtained a judgment for damages for breach of contract of the October 16, 2008 Letter by Ellison. “Concho counterclaimed for, among other things, breach of contract and a declaratory judgment premised on the signed 2008 letter…” 36 Ignoring for the moment whether the October 16, 2008 Letter was a contract (clear offer and acceptance (of what?), lack of mutual consideration), the question is, did Concho own the contract rights under said Letter as well as the cause of action for its breach? None of the three assignments from Concho’s predecessor in title into it contain any express assignment of the October 16, 2008 Letter or the cause of action for its breach. The Court never ruled on Ellison’s standing argument that Concho had failed to prove that it had a valid assignment of both (i) the underlying contract (October 16, 2008 Letter) and (ii) the cause of action for the breach of contract claims. Both of these rights are, under Texas law, personal to the contracting parties (Samson and the Ellisons) . Only those parties that “own” such rights can assert those claims. The issue of standing raised by Mrs. Ellison was whether Concho owned the contract rights under the October 16, 2008 Letter and thus had the right to bring the cause of action for its breach. The Court never addressed this issue, never. Without an assignment of the contract and the breach of contract claim, Concho had no legal standing to assert them, thus requiring a take- nothing judgment against Ellison . 37 To be in privity, Concho/Three Rivers must have been a [35] Gulf Oil Corp. v. Marathon Oil Co ., 152 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex. 1941) [36] Concho Resources, Inc. et al. v. Ellison, 627 S.W.3d. 226, 232 (Tex. 2021) [37] First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Greater Austin Area Telecomms. Network , 318 S.W.3d 560 (Tex. App. –2010, no pet.)
29
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