2019 Q3



These materials reflect only the personal views of the author and are not individualized legal advice. It is understood that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these

materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation.  Thus, the author and their law firm cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with the author or their law firm. While every attempt was made to insure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed.

Duhig Revisited – Perryman v. Spartan Tex. Six Capital Partners, Ltd.


Title examination is typically characterized by a series of deeds and conveyances, which—unsurprisingly—do not convey property and/or interests in a neat, uniform fashion.  To eliminate some of this confusion in the context of over-conveyances, the Texas Supreme Court established the Duhig doctrine.  Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co., 144 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. 1940).  The Duhig doctrine holds that where full effect cannot be given to the granted interest and the reserved interest, the grantor will be stopped, and the courts will give priority to the granted interest until the granted interest has been fully satisfied.  If the granted interest cannot be fully satisfied, then the grantee has a cause of action for breach of warranty.  Id. at 879-80. In Perryman v. Spartan Tex. Six Capital Partners, Ltd., 546 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. 2018), the Texas Supreme Court revisited the Duhig doctrine and ultimately rejected its applicability to the conveyances at issue.  Perryman involved a chain of eight separate real-property deeds, the first of which was executed in 1977, when Ben Perryman conveyed property to his son and daughter- in-law, Gary and Nancy Perryman.  546 S.W.3d 110 at 113.  The deed conveyed to Gary and Nancy a parcel of land referred to as the “First Tract,” “LESS, SAVE AND EXCEPT an undivided one-half (1/2) of all royalties from the production of oil, gas and/or other minerals that may be produced from the above described premises which are now owned by Grantor.”  Id. at 113-14 (emphasis added). As a result of the deed and in light of the fact that Ben owned all of the royalties, minerals, and premises at the

time of the conveyance, Ben retained 1/2 of the royalty interests in the First Tract, and Gary and Nancy owned all of the surface and mineral interests and the other 1/2 of the royalty interest in the First Tract.  Id. at 114.  In a series of seven more deeds all containing warranties, the First Tract was conveyed to different entities, with several deeds failing to disclose the existing royalty interest ownership. executed, with respect to the “less, save and except” clauses present in the first four deeds.  The trial court construed the language as reserving for the grantor 1/2 of all the royalties which were then owned by the grantor, thus eliminating any Duhig concern.  Id. at 113.  On the other hand, the court of appeals held that the deeds in this case “purported to grant title to the land subject to a 1/2 royalty interest in the described property.”  Id. at 118.  The court of appeals concluded that, because the deeds made “no mention” of the “previously excepted” royalty interests, and yet provided general warranties covering all the title purportedly conveyed, the grantors breached their warranties and thus were “estopped from claiming a royalty interest in the subject property under the Duhig doctrine.”  Id. The Texas Supreme Court, however, did not apply the Duhig doctrine.  Id. at 119.  The Texas Supreme Court explained that “the ‘less, save and except’ clause created an exception from the grant, not a reservation for the grantor.”  Id.  The “deeds conveyed the entire property interest ‘less, save and except’ a 1/2 royalty interest, The dispute focused on the ownership of the royalty interests after the seven subsequent deeds were


G r o w t h T h r o u g h E d u c a t i o n - J u l y / A u g u s t / S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 9

Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter