most title examination attorneys bill by the hour, the larger and more complicated a run sheet is, the longer it will take to chain the title, analyze the chain of title and write the title opinion. My estimate – at least one and one-half to twice the present average cost of rendering a title opinion pre- Broadway.
deed (to correct a material matter/error) since any subsequent owner is potentially protected by § 5.030 and (ii) whether there is a four (4) year statute of limitations allowing for the correction of a material error from and after the date of the original instrument. In the author’s opinion, the Court’s decision on these issues was unnecessary since the appellants had been foreclosed by the Court’s interpretation of the “as applicable” provision detailed above leading to a conclusion that such judicial comments were very possibly dicta. If ultimately the Court is going to declare that (obviously in a subsequent case), as to any purchaser acquiring an interest in land after the date a correction deed is properly recorded that (i) such purchaser will be constructively on notice of the existence and contents of any such correction deed coupled with (ii) the new legal principle that such correction deed is to be treated, as a matter of law, as being within the purchaser’s chain of title and (iii) that all correction deeds entered into prior to September 1, 2011 that substantially comply with § 5.028 or § 5.029 may be effective (unless adjudged not to be a valid correction deed by a valid court judgment), then it is imperative that all online/ courthouse title examiners carry all names of all grantors/grantees forward down to the date of the close of the abstract/run sheet. This means running every owner is the chain of title (and their heirs, successors and assigns) forward to the closing date of the run sheet to insure that no additional correction deeds have been filed which might affect the title to the lands under examination. The title examiner will never know which of the potential parties identified by this case (original parties, heirs, successors or assigns) will have executed a correction deed. Because of this case, the title examiner will basically not only be running title to the apparent owner of the lands under examination but also all prior owners down to the closing date of the run sheet. But, if this case is retroactive in its application, what about all of the past title scenarios without date limitation where: (1) a material error was made in an instrument of conveyance; (2) an interest in the lands made the basis of the instrument of conveyance was conveyed to a third party and (3)
Conclusion
In the author’s opinion, no longer can oil companies just call ABC Land Co. and ask that a run sheet from sovereignty of the soil to the present for a specific tract be prepared. The lands for which the run sheet is being prepared are presumably under lease to the client oil company. Initially, it is in the best interest of the client company, with knowledge of this case and the correction deed statutes in general, to contractually specify in writing what title examination methodology must be utilized by the title examiner in the preparation of the run sheet. Because of this case and the correction deed statutes, any request for a run sheet by a client company should be accompanied by a simple two-party contract not only specifying the title examination methodology to be utilized in the preparation of the run sheet but also what specific documents in the county records will be reviewed as well. For instance, the author has reviewed run sheets where it became evident early on (everyone in the chain of title reflected by a run sheet had died intestate over a hundred year time period) that no county probate records had been reviewed. Likewise, hints of litigation can only be confirmed by a review of the county district clerk’s records. The specifics of what any such contract should contain is the subject for another paper. Whether the examining attorney wishes to formalize its protection (i) in a retainage agreement or (ii) in an Attorney’s Disclaimer containing appropriate language protecting the examining attorney from liability for documents missed due to an improper title examination procedure underlying the run sheet preparation is also the subject for another paper. The remainder of the Court’s opinion was a discussion of: (i) why subsequent owners in the chain of title do not have to join in a correction
25
G rowth T hrough E ducat i on - J uly / A ugus t / S ept ember 2022
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator