Richard F. Brown The following is not a legal opinion. You should consult your attorney if the case may be of significance to you. MINERAL RIGHTS Recently there have been some mailouts to landowners, enclosing a bank draft, for the purchase of term royalty interest. This is very different from an oil and […]
Richard F. Brown The following is not a legal opinion. You should consult your attorney if the case may be of significance to you. French v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 896 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. 1995) considers whether an instrument conveys a 1/656 mineral interest or a 1/656 royalty. If a mineral interest, the owner would share […]
Richard F. Brown The following is not a legal opinion. You should consult your attorney if the case may be of significance to you. Garza v. Prolithic Energy Co., L.P., 195 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. denied) analyzes two deeds raising the issues of (1) the mineral royalty distinction, and (2) conflicting […]
Richard F. Brown The following is not a legal opinion. You should consult your attorney if the case may be of significance to you. Glover v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 187 S.W.3d 201 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. denied), applied the doctrine of strips and gores and adverse possession to determine title to the minerals […]
Richard F. Brown The following is not a legal opinion. You should consult your attorney if the case may be of significance to you. ConocoPhillips Co. v. Incline Energy, Inc., 189 S.W. 3d 377 (Tex. App. – Tyler 2006, pet. denied) holds that Buyer under a gas purchase agreement was not required to account […]
Richard F. Brown The following is not a legal opinion. You should consult your attorney if the case may be of significance to you. Ruiz v. Stewart Mineral Corp. , 202 S.W.3d 242, (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, pet. denied) discusses the applicability of a declaratory judgment action to establish title by adverse possession and deed construction. […]
Richard F. Brown The following is not a legal opinion. You should consult your attorney if the case may be of significance to you. Hamilton v. Hamilton, No. 04-06-00046-CV, 2006 WL 3612876 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. denied) holds that a grant conveying 15% of “all rights owned,” save and except listed burdens, was not […]
