that the following analysis could provide a yes answer to the question.
since the remaindermen did not join in its execution or ratify same? Does the lessee now owe the remaindermen, as of the date of John’s death or from some other date, 25% of 8/8 of all production less the costs of drilling/production? Is interest owed on the payments to the remaindermen? 2. Are Yates Energy/EOG Resources et al. barred from recovering any consideration paid to John for the purchase of his royalty interest since (i) the estate they now own in the lands at issue is a life estate only and (ii) more than four (4) years have elapsed since their acquisition of John’s royalty interest? Are Yates Energy/EOG Resources et al. barred from recovering the bonus monies paid to John for an oil and gas lease on his 25% interest since, what was ultimately leased according to the decision, was John’s life estate in 25% of the mineral estate, thus causing an apparent overpayment of bonus for what the lessee thought was a full 25% mineral interest at the time the lands at issue were leased? 3.
Texas law is clear that a judicial reformation of a deed requires two elements: (1) an original agreement (Mary Evers Trust agreement/ amendment) and (2) a mutual mistake, made after the original agreement, in reducing the original agreement to writing (2005 Deed which conveyed to John a full 25% mineral interest instead of a life estate therein). Sun Oil Co. v. Bennett , 84 S.W.2d 447, (Tex. 1935); Cherokee Water Co. v. Forderhause , 741 S.W.2d 377, 379 (Tex. 1987). Obviously, the elements necessary for the reformation of the 2005 Deed are present. The only problem is that too much time has elapsed (eight years) to allow for a judicial decision on the reformation of such instrument. According to Broadway , however, not a problem anymore. It should be noted that the underlying purpose of reformation is to correct a mutual mistake made in preparing a written instrument so that the instrument truly reflects the original agreement of the parties. Was it a step too far for the Court, as a policy matter, to find that the result of the 2013 Correction Deed was to correct a mutual mistake made in preparing the 2005 Deed? In fact, the Court held just that. Unfortunately, it also held that such non-judicial correction had no four (4) year statute of limitations in which to correct such mutual mistake. Had the Court really examined what the effect of a judicial reformation is on a deed containing a mutual mistake it would have found that the 2013 Correction Deed had the same legal effect – correcting a mutual mistake. And as a further policy consideration, the Court could have found that the parties to an instrument containing a mutual mistake have only four (4) years from the date of the original instrument to correct same. Alas, it did not.
Effect of Broadway on Present Day Title Examination
At this point in the analysis of Broadway , it is important to look at the decision of the case and its effect on title examination. Not “title examination” as some abstract term but the literal process of how landmen (and sometimes brave attorneys) actually run a title chain online or in the courthouse. Specifically, as of February 1, 2005, the “record” showed that the Bank, having conveyed an undivided 25% mineral interest to John, no longer had any title to that 25% mineral interest left vested in it which could be further conveyed. More importantly, John was vested with an undivided 25% fee simple interest in the mineral estate in the subject lands via the 2005 deed. KEY – how does the person actually running the title bring that title forward after the February 1, 2005 conveyance by the Bank? Did the title examiner carry forward and look for additional conveyances out of the Bank from and after that date? What about post- Broadway?
Now the present parties are left with the following issues:
1. Since the remaindermen apparently did not join in John et al.’s oil and gas lease(s) covering the lands at issue, did the lessee’s oil and gas leases, as to John’s NOW life estate interest, terminate at his death? Was the oil and gas lease from John ever valid
It cannot be emphasized enough that the purpose
17
G rowth T hrough E ducat i on - J uly / A ugus t / S ept ember 2022
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator