with the patent from the government, each being a perfect conveyance of the title down to and including the conveyance to the present holder.” ( Noble Mortg. & Investments, LLC v. D & M Vision Investments, LLC , 340 S.W.3d 65, 80 (Tex.App. - 2011)). Unquestionably, the 2013 Correction Deed was outside of Yates et al. chain of title under the rules of law governing same as they existed prior to this case. The 2013 Correction Deed did not form an essential link in the grantee’s (Yates et al.) chain of title but rather appears out of order and, for all intents and purposes, under standard title examination guidelines (until this case), would not have been looked for and thus not located by the title examiner for two reasons: (1) after the 25% mineral conveyance by the Bank to John et al., the Bank no longer owned any mineral interest in the subject lands coupled with (2) John’s royalty conveyance to Yates Energy, John no longer owned any royalty interest in the subject lands. Neither John nor the Bank would thereafter have ever been considered as an owner in the chain of title to Yates et al.’s royalty interest and thus not run forward in the pertinent county deed records to see if they had executed a correction deed. It appears that the Correction Deed Statutes coupled with this case totally reverses the decades long title examination methodology explained above. Post- Broadway title examination procedures will now require that title examiners carry each and every owner found in the chain of title forward and run each such owner down to the closing date of the run sheet to confirm that no correction deed was executed after the date of the initial deed was entered into. This title examination procedure is of course subject to any risk decision the client company may make regarding same. Worse yet, not just the individual name(s) but, as time passes, it could be incumbent on the title examiner to research and determine if the initial person in the chain of title had any heirs, successors or assigns who could be qualified to sign a correction deed under Tex. Prop. Code § 5.029(b)(1).
execution of a correction deed, may have to, at the least, defend its interest in a trespass to try title suit (or other authorized litigation contesting title) when, at the same time (ii) prior to this case, such third party grantee would not have been charged with the constructive notice of the correction deed since it would not have been in such grantee’s chain of title. Is the law today, due to the “Correction Deed Statutes”/this case, that such third party grantee is now charged with constructive notice of, the existence and contents of such correction deed? No, not if such third party grantee can prove it is a bona fide purchaser (See Tex. Prop. Code § 5.030). It makes one wonder if the creator(s) of the correction deed statutes had ever actually created a run sheet based on the official county deed records and thereafter rendered a true, sovereignty of the soil title opinion based only on the contents of the deed/official records etc. of a given county only and not based on an examination of abstract plant records. The even more pressing question is whether this decision is retroactive as though it was always the law or is it effective only on a go-forward basis? As set forth above, in the author’s opinion this case has retroactive application. The question that thus arises is, if a correction deed has been missed by the person in the courthouse/online utilizing traditional title examination methodology, and title fails in whole or in part under the holding in this case, who is responsible – the party preparing the run sheet or the title attorney examining the title and writing the title opinion or both? More significantly, how can each (run sheet preparer and title attorney) protect themselves on a go forward basis? Retroactive application of this case could cast legal responsibility on both the title examiner in the courthouse/on-line and on the rendering attorney for any missed correction deed regardless of its age relative to the effective date of the “Correction Deed Statutes” (9/1/2011).
Bona Fide Purchasers/Notice
The Court held the following relative to bona fide purchasers, quoted in pertinent part:
Otherwise , one reaches the dichotomy of: (i) a third party grantee, acquiring its interest prior to the
“… Section 13.001 further states that an
21
G rowth T hrough E ducat i on - J uly / A ugus t / S ept ember 2022
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator