611 Bounds v. Prud’Homme, No. 12-15-00177-CV, 2016 WL 1254072 (Tex. App.—Tyler Mar. 31, 2016, pet. denied)
Tuesday, July 17th, 2018
The following is not a legal opinion. You should consult your attorney if the case may be of significance to you.
Bounds v. Prud’Homme, No. 12-15-00177-CV, 2016 WL 1254072 (Tex. App.—Tyler Mar. 31, 2016, pet. denied) is a deed construction case, which held that no minerals were reserved. In 2001, Grantors conveyed a property to Grantee by six separate deeds. “The ‘granting clause’ in the deed[s] conveyed all of the interest the Grantors held in the property ‘subject to the reservations from and exceptions to conveyance and warranty’ contained under the reservations and exceptions heading.” That heading read as follows:
Reservations from and Exceptions to Conveyance and Warranty: TITLE to any of the oil, gas and other minerals, in, under and that may be produced from the above-described real property, together with all rights, privileges and immunities relating thereto, including the following:
[Descriptions of a 1934 and a 1971 mineral reservation].
The issue was whether the 2001 deeds reserved the minerals to Grantors.
The court held that the deeds were not ambiguous and that no minerals were reserved. The court reasoned that the quoted paragraph “contains a heading that references three separate concepts.” “The text immediately following the heading is a sentence fracture lacking a verb, which makes sense only when read in conjunction with the two paragraphs that follow, identifying prior mineral reservations.” The court concludes that the deed merely states that there are two prior reservations, but does not create a new one for Grantors. The court gives particular weight to the principle that reservations by implication are not favored.
Five of the deeds contained an additional sentence at the end of the property description and just before the quoted paragraph which stated: “This Deed is intended to convey all of Grantor’s interest in and to the above-described real property.” Although Grantors argued this was evidence of Grantors’ intent to convey subject to the mineral reservation, the court held the additional sentence was consistent with its reading of the quoted paragraph and the rest of the deed.
The significance of the case is the holding that reservations must be by clear language and that reservations by implication are not favored.