633 Combest v. Mustang Minerals, LLC, 502 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. denied)

Richard F. Brown

The following is not a legal opinion. You should consult your attorney if the case may be of significance to you.

Combest v. Mustang Minerals, LLC. Combest v. Mustang Minerals, LLC, 502 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016, pet. denied) (Reservation in land described or interest conveyed), held that the language in a deed reserved a one-half interest in the minerals from the land described, not the land conveyed. In September 2003, Grantor conveyed to Grantee with the following reservation in the property description clause:

The grantor herein . . . excepts from this conveyance and reserves unto themselves, their heirs and assigns an undivided one-half (1/2) interest in and to all of the oil, gas, and/or other minerals.

At the time of the conveyance, Grantor owned all of the surface and 1/2 of the minerals. The parties aligned as successors-in-interest to Grantor and Grantee. The issue was whether Grantee acquired 1/2 of the minerals, 1/4 of the minerals, or none of the minerals. Grantee’s principal argument was that Grantee received 1/2 of Grantor’s mineral estate (1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4) relying upon the language, “from this conveyance,” in the reservation.

Averyt v. Grande, Inc. is the controlling precedent. According to the Texas Supreme Court, “[i]f the deed reserves a fraction of the minerals under the land conveyed, then the deed reserves a fraction of the part of the mineral estate actually owned by the grantor and conveyed in the deed.” On the other hand, if “the deed reserves a fraction of the minerals under the land described, the deed reserves a fraction of the minerals under the entire physical tract, regardless of the part of the mineral estate actually conveyed.”

The court in this case examined the “four corners” of the 2003 deed to ascertain the intent of the parties from all of the language in the deed. Subject to the reservations listed, the deed conveyed “the property.” The court specifically noted that the reservation of the mineral interest was under the property clause, which gave a complete description of the property, minus Grantor’s one-half mineral interest. Thus, the description of “the property” conveyed did not include Grantor’s 1/2 of the minerals. Also, under the reservations and exceptions clause, the one-half interest not owned by the Grantor was specifically described and excepted. The court held that the deed reserved a “fraction of the minerals from the land described.” Thus, Grantor did not convey Grantor’s 1/2 interest in the mineral estate to Grantee.

This is a deed construction case following existing precedent by applying a “four-corners” analysis of a deed to determine whether the minerals reserved were reserved from the land described or the land conveyed. The twist in the case was that the property “described” excluded the 1/2 of the minerals owned by Grantor and the exception clause excepted the 1/2 of the minerals owned by others.