296 Derwen Res., LLC v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc.
Monday, August 31st, 2015
The following is not a legal opinion. You should consult your attorney if the case may be of significance to you.
Derwen Resources, LLC v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., No. 09-07-00597-CV, 2008 WL 6141597 (Tex. App.—Beaumont May 21, 2009, pet. filed) (mem. op.) holds that a deed is ambiguous only if there are two or more reasonable interpretations of the instrument. Four conveyances were executed into Louis, each describing a 229 acre tract of land. Louis then conveyed “all my interest in and to all that certain land, as hereinafter described. . . .” The Louis deed then described only three of the original four conveyances into Louis. The Louis deed then recited: “It being my intention to hereby convey all my entire interest in the above described land conveyed to me as aforesaid. . . .” The question before the court was whether Louis conveyed all of his interest in the 229 acre tract of land.
The parties advanced conflicting interpretations of “all my interest in and to all that certain land, as hereinafter described. . . .” The successor to the grantor Louis argued that “as hereinafter described” modified the interest being conveyed, so that the interest conveyed was only the 3/4 interest Louis had acquired under the three deeds. The successor to Louis’ grantee argued that “as hereinafter described” modified land, not interest, and refers to the entire 229 acre tract.
If a conveyance is unambiguous, courts can construe the deed as a matter of law. A deed is unambiguous when it can be given a definite or certain meaning as a matter of law. However, if there are two or more reasonable interpretations after rules of construction are applied, the conveyance is ambiguous. By applying the four corners doctrine and the doctrine of last antecedent, the court found that the deed was not ambiguous. Based on the plain meaning in the deed, “as hereinafter described” modifies the last antecedent “land,” and it does not modify “interest.” “Any other reading would render the conveyance language in the granting clause and habendum clause – ‘all my interest’ and ‘all my entire interest’ – meaningless or inoperative.” The court also relies upon the fact that the form of this deed did not conform with the usual form for a deed including a reservation.
This case highlights the fact that courts do not favor reservations by implication.