“Subject to” Interpretation: Conveying Reversionary Rights and the Pauler Decision
Texas
easements, ordinances and rights-of-way of record in the office of the County Clerk of Karnes County, Texas” (emphasis added). [5] Additional paragraphs provided that: In addition to the above exceptions , there is reserved and excepted unto SUSAN JANYSEK, an undivided one-fourth (1/4) interest in and to all royalty paid on the production or mining of oil, gas and any and all other minerals, whether similar or dissimilar. The interest reserved unto the said SUSAN JANYSEK, shall be a non-participating royalty interest . . . . Such royalty interest is for the life of SUSAN JANYSEK, and after her death, such royalty interest shall revert to [Susan’s nine children, identified by name]. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above described premises, subject to the above mentioned exceptions and reservations , together with all and singular, the rights and appurtenances thereto in anywise belonging unto the said VINCENT J. JANYSEK and wife, LEONA B. JANYSEK, their heirs and assigns, forever; and we do hereby bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators, to WARRANT and FOREVER DEFEND, all and singular, the said premises, subject to the above mentioned exceptions and reservations , unto the said VINCENT J. JANYSEK and wife, LEONA B. JANYSEK, their heirs and assigns, against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof (emphasis added) . [6] The dispute arose in 2018, when a lessee interpreted the 1977 Deed to have conveyed the grantors’ reversionary rights in the disputed Term Royalty Interests and the 1/24 Royalty Interests to the grantees. Soon after, the successors of the
In the Texas case of Pauler v. M & L Minerals, LP , [1] the San Antonio Court of Appeals was tasked with interpreting a mineral deed to determine whether certain disputed royalty interests had been conveyed or excepted. Under particular scrutiny was the effect of the deed’s “subject to” language on these previously conveyed interests. In reversing the trial court’s judgment, the Court of Appeals held that the language in the deed conveyed all of the grantor’s interests in the property to the grantees. [2] This included all of the grantors’ royalties and reversionary rights (other than a specific reservation to one grantor). [3] Susan and Edward Janysek acquired a 197-acre tract of land in 1925. In 1958, Susan and Edward conveyed a term 1/4 nonparticipating royalty interest to a third party for a ten-year period and as long as oil and gas is produced. The following year, in 1959, Susan and Edward conveyed a term 1/8 nonparticipating royalty interest to a different third party for ten years and as long as oil or gas is produced (collectively, the “Term Royalty Interests”). [4] Later that year, Susan and Edward executed nine royalty deeds to each of their nine children, with each deed conveying a 1/24 nonparticipating royalty interest (“1/24 Royalty Interests”). In 1977, Susan Janysek (now a widow) and eight of her nine children executed the mineral deed at issue (the “1977 Deed”) in favor of the ninth child. The 1977 Deed stated that the grantors conveyed: “All that certain tract or parcel of land [legal description of the property].” Following the description of the property, the 1977 Deed states, “[t]his conveyance is subject, however, to all mineral conveyances, mineral reservations, oil, gas and other mineral leases, royalty conveyances or reservations,
28
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