et al. , No. 01-16-00896-CV (Tx. App. 2018) is a memorandum opinion and addresses whether a correction deed not signed by one of the original parties was in “substantial compliance” with § 5.029. In holding that it was not, the court held: “Generally, “’[s]ubstantial compliance’ means that one has performed the ‘essential requirements’ of a statute and it ‘excuse[s] those deviations from the performance required by statute which do not seriously hinder the legislature’s purpose in imposing the requirement.” “This Court has held, however, that the requirement that each party to the recorded original instrument execute the correction deed is “essential to fulfilling the Legislature’s standard for permitting a material correction” under section 5.029.” 2. Tregellas v. Carl M. Archer Trust No. 3 , 566 S.W. 3 rd 281 (Tex, 2018) is a Texas Supreme Court case overruling a Court of Appeals Case (507 S.W. 3 rd 423). The Court of Appeals case contained a detailed discussion pertaining to the analysis of a pre-9/1/2011 correction deed to determine if it substantially complied with § 5.029. Unfortunately, that issue was not addressed by the Court. 3. Endeavor Energy Res. v. Trudy Jane Anderson Testamentary Tr., No. 11-20-00263- CV (Tex. App. 2022) is a recent appeals case that deals with the substantial compliance issue in § 5.029 for a deed entered into in 2003 and a correction deed entered into in 2007. A trespass to try title suit was filed in 2019 in an attempt to invalidate the 2007 correction deed.
constructive notice for their failure to obtain a copy of the trust agreement/amendment containing a conflict in what John represented he owned (25% fee simple mineral interest) and what he was entitled to under the trust agreement/amendment (life estate in 25% fee simple mineral interest). As it is, Yates Energy/EOG Resources et al. will have to prove that they are bona fide purchasers upon remand – yet another lawsuit for which the Correction Deed Statutes were enacted to guard against.
Substantial Compliance
Not only is the decision and the rules of law announced in the Broadway case probably retroactive, § 5.031 of the Correction Deed Statutes specifically makes § 5.028 and § 5.029 applicable to any correction deed made prior to the effective date of the statutes (September 1, 2011) subject to certain requirements. Specifically, § 5.031 provides the following:
“A correction instrument recorded before September 1, 2011, that substantially complies with Section 5.028 or 5.029 and that purports to correct a recorded original instrument of conveyance is effective to the same extent as provided by Section 5.030 unless a court of competent jurisdiction renders a final judgment determining that the correction instrument does not substantially comply with Section 5.028 or 5.029.” (emphasis added).
Three cases that the author could locate appear to address the issue of substantial compliance with § 5.028/§ 5.029 when deciding whether a pre-9/1/2011 correction deed is valid or invalid under § 5.031. Clearly, the Legislature is attempting to establish applicability of the Correction Deed Statutes to all correction deeds entered into/ recorded prior to 9/1/2011 if same are in substantial compliance with the statutes (§ 5.028/§ 5.029).
The appellate court first held, for a correction deed to obtain the “retroactive effect” outlined in § 5.030, that such correction deed
1. AIC Management Co. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC
23
G rowth T hrough E ducat i on - J uly / A ugus t / S ept ember 2022
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator