“substantially complies” with § 5.029. The Correction Deed Statutes do not define what “substantial compliance” is. The appellate court defined that clause to mean “… Generally, that phrase means that one has performed the “essential requirements” of a statute, and it excuses deviations which do not seriously hinder the legislature’s purpose in imposing such requirements.”
John to Yates Energy) would have been the end of the title investigation into the interests owned by these two entities by Yates Energy/EOG Resources et al. This case is limited to its specific facts ie both the Bank and John (and the other grantees to the 2005 Deed) were alive in 2013 to execute the 2013 Correction Deed. If John had died prior to the date of the 2013 Correction Deed, would the list specified by the Legislature for substituted parties have had to be followed exactly as written? That is, following the exact order of the statute, would the heirs (what if he died testate?), if any, first and then John’s assign (Yates Energy/EOG Resources et al.) have been the proper party(ies) to execute the 2013 Correction Deed? Or would both John’s heirs and his assigns have to execute the 2013 Correction Deed? What happens when there are two of the classes (heirs/ assigns) who are alive at the time of John’s death and could qualify as potential grantees of a later correction deed? That is, if John died with heirs as well as assigns, per § 5.029, who was the proper party to execute a correction deed? Unknown. Until this case, most title examiners would have said the assignee, Yates Energy/EOG Resources et al. More importantly, the answer will not be known until…. more litigation. Far-fetched? No, the result in this case is far-fetched. What follows from this decision is anyone’s guess. It cannot be emphasized enough that, to even have found the 2013 Correction Deed in the pertinent county deed records, the title examiner would have had to carry each original party to the 2005 deed down to the close of the run sheet. Only by locating the Bank and John et al. could the 2013 Correction Deed have been located in the county deed records. As to the run sheet preparation costs – unknown. Based on the author’s experience, the more complicated (more owners and the longer a name must be run forward), the greater the cost multiplier. Again, estimating – based on the results of this case, client companies should expect to suffer at least double/triple the cost of run sheet preparation compared to today’s costs. It cannot be emphasized enough that building a run sheet post Broadway has gotten way more complicated and potentially more expensive.
Costs of run sheet preparation/title examination
This part of this article is purely speculative. But speculative as to what? What the Court has told the title examination profession is that, if your acquisition of the subject lands (or an interest therein) occurs after the execution (by the correct parties) and recording of a correction deed, you are charged with constructive notice of same (§ 5.030), including its contents. How should Yates Energy/ EOG Resources et al. have protected themselves from the very result achieved by this decision. First, the reader is not told how or under what circumstances knowledge of the Mary Frances Evers Trust was discovered since it was unrecorded. No statement is made by the Court concerning any actual knowledge of the Trust nor its contents by Yates Energy/EOG Resources et al. A requirement should have been made in any title opinion issued covering the subject lands to acquire a copy of the trust agreement/amendment to confirm that John owned and had the authority to convey a full 25% royalty interest in the subject lands. Was this done? Unknown. If it had been done, a serious question would have had to have been answered by John concerning his ownership of more than a life estate in the oil, gas and other minerals (which is what the trust agreement evidently provided for). Would the 2006 Correction deed signed only by the Bank have been located prior to this case? No, since neither the Bank nor John owned any royalty interest in the subject lands, neither of their names would have been run forward after their respective conveyances. Until this case, their conveyances of all of their interest in the subject lands (25% mineral interest by the Bank to John; 25% royalty interest by
Title examination costs – again an estimate. Since
24
N at i onal A ssociation of D i v i s i on O rder A nalys t s
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator