According to the San Antonio Court of Appeals, reversionary rights to a prior-existing royalty and similar outstanding interests must be clearly and unequivocally reserved or excepted or they will likely pass under a deed. [16] A “subject to” clause generally will not be stretched to “imply” an exception. This case also serves as a reminder that although mechanical rules and magic words have given way to the modern four-corner analysis, the classic rules of deed construction remain a persuasive tool. _________________________________ [1] Tex. App. LEXIS 5381 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, July 7, 2021, pet. filed). The San Antonio Court of Appeals originally handed down its opinion on May 12 at 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 3655. After the appellees filed a motion for rehearing, the Court withdrew its May 12 opinion and substituted its July 7 opinion. [2] Id . at 15. [3] Id . at 15. [4] At the time of the 1977 conveyance, both royalty interests were still outstanding. [5] Id . at 3. [6] Id . at 3 – 4.
[11] Id . at 8. [12] Id . at 11. [13] Id . at 14. [14] Id . [15] Id . at 15. [16] See id . at 10 – 11.
_________________ CONTACT
If you have any questions regarding this case law update or suggestions for topics to be covered in future issues, please call our office at 713-229-0360 or contact:
Brad Gibbs Partner, Houston bgibbs@oglawyers.com Landi Harding Law Clerk, Houston lharding@oglawyers.com
[7] Id . at 5. [8] Id . at 6.
[9] 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 2871 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Apr. 10, 2019, pet. denied) (holding that the court would not imply a reservation in favor of grantors because a general warranty deed conveys all a grantor’s interest unless a lesser conveyance is clearly shown by the language of the deed and because the grantors had not provided any authority to show that the language used in the deed expressly excepted or reserved the future interest created by the earlier deed). [10] 553 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018, pet. denied) (holding that the parties intended the words “subject to” only to serve the purpose of “informing the grantees that other interests were still outstanding”).
The content of this publication and any attachments are not intended to be and should not be relied upon as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship. © 2022 Oliva Gibbs LLP. All rights reserved. This publication may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Houston (principal office): 815 Walker St., Suite 1140, Houston, Texas 77002, 713-229-0360 | Columbus: One East Livingston Avenue, Suite B, Columbus, Ohio 43215, 614-349-4525 | Oklahoma City: Commerce Center 9520 N. May Avenue, Suite 219 Oklahoma City, OK 73120, 405-757-8797
30
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