of either the October 16, 2008 Letter nor the cause of action for its breach. 46
To follow the legal and factual reasoning of the Court in this case is to doom grantors, grantees, title attorneys, title companies, oil and gas companies, and mortgage and bank lenders, etc. to constant and unnecessary litigation. It is almost as though this Court wants no fixed rules of law to govern real property transactions much as those who would construe the Constitution to be a “living and breathing” document, subject to change and whim of the court’s composition on the date of any relevant decision. And with no guiding consistently applied rule of law principles, including Texas’ longstanding rules of property law, heretofore applied by every competent title examiner in customary title examination to justify and support the examiner’s opinions that provide title confirmation and security to clients - all that is now out the window. Stated differently, it appears we are left, in the area of real property law, much as attorneys were left in the area of obscenity/criminal law, regarding what specific rule of law should be applied: “…I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it , …
CONCLUSION:
It is NOT the job of this Court to pick winners and losers by ignoring stare decisis . It IS the job of this Court to accurately apply long standing, ancient rules of real property against the specific facts of this case and reach a legal conclusion on Mrs. Ellison’s claim of ownership under Texas’ statutory Trespass to Try Title schemata. This was not done as can be seen from the analysis of the overturned legal principles in violation of the rule of stare decisis . Due to the significant changes in Texas law by this Court’s opinion as applied to the facts in this case, Texas oil and gas title examiners can no longer confidently and accurately reach correct legal conclusions regarding mineral ownership as long as this opinion stands. In the author’s opinion, this Court’s decision in this case will have profound, unintended consequences in the oil and gas industry as related to the issuance of title opinions and the reliance on those title opinions by the client oil companies. Title opinions will have to undergo significant and profound change both in content as well as exclusions from coverage in the above identified areas.
[46] Jacobellis v. Ohio , 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) (emphasis added)
Bona Fide Victory: How a “Void” Deed Can Confer BFP Status in New Mexico
New Mexico
Background and Facts In Koch , various parties laid claim to an overriding royalty interest (the “Koch ORRI”) in a Federal Oil and Gas Lease (the “Lease”). The parties generally aligned as the “Koch Plaintiffs” and the “David Defendants.” The dispute began with the divorce of Robert and Anne Koch who had acquired the Koch ORRI during their marriage as their community property.[3] Robert and Anne Koch divorced in 1969, and as
In Koch v. David Fam. Oil & Gas Ints. P’Ship ,[1] the Court of Appeals of New Mexico held that the grantee in a deed of distribution executed by the foreign personal representative of an estate can be a bona fide purchaser in the absence of ancillary New Mexico probate proceedings. The court further held that bona fide purchaser status may be attained through both “void” and “voidable” instruments.[2]
31
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