Published on:

The recent case of Hardaway v. Nixon, decided by the San Antonio Court of Appeals, provides an example of the doctrine of adverse possession as it relates to co-tenants. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the landowners claiming adverse possession. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that a presumption of ouster could not be affirmed on summary judgment merely on proof of long-continued possession — 75 years — even in the absence of a claim of ownership by the non-possessory co-tenants. According to the Court, no evidence was presented in the summary judgment record that the owners undertook “unequivocal, unmistakable, and hostile acts” and mere possession and lack of a claim of ownership by non-possessory co-tenants was not sufficient to “disseize” the non-possessory co-tenants.

Texas Property Law: Adverse Possession Against a Cotenant

Under Texas law, adverse possession with respect to a co-tenant requires proof of “ouster” or “repudiation” of the co-tenant’s claim to ownership. Ouster/repudiation is generally shown by various “unequivocal, unmistakable, and hostile acts” taken by the tenant in possession to oust or disseize the non-possessory co-tenant, but can also be shown by long continued possession. Aside from actually fencing, locking, and taking other “hostile” acts to repudiate a co-tenant, there are two other circumstances in which Texas courts have recognized ouster/repudiation and notice:

Published on:

Under Texas law, the Statute of Frauds requires that contracts regarding the sale of lands be in writing. There are some exceptions to this “in writing” requirement, particularly if the buyer has partially performed under the contract. The case of Zaragoza v. Jessen  provides a good reminder of the principles underlying the Statute of Frauds and the partial performance exception.

Statute of Frauds

The Statute of Frauds is codified at Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 26.01(a) & (b) which states, in pertinent part:

Published on:

A recent case from the Houston Court of Appeals reminds us that, at least in Texas, if you are renting a house and you walk over broken concrete for months, you cannot sue your landlord if you fall on the broken concrete. See Phillips v. Abraham, 517 S.W.3d 355 (Tex.Civ.App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.). The broken concrete is going to be deemed “open and obvious” at that point and, if no exceptions apply, you will not recover a judgment against your landlord. The case is a victory for common sense.

Facts of Case

During 2012 and 2013, the plaintiff leased a house in Friendswood from the owners and signed a written residential lease. In January 2013, the plaintiff lost his footing and fell while attempting to walk up the driveway which, according to the plaintiff, “was in disrepair with many loose and broken rocks.” As a result of the fall, the plaintiff claims that he broke his back. He sued for negligence and sought exemplary damages based on alleged gross negligence of the landlord.

Published on:

In 1924, Cora McCrabb (along with two co-owners) owned 1,448.50 acres of farm and pasture land. In that same year, Cora executed her Last Will and Testament, bequeathing all of her “farm lands and pasture lands” equally to her three grandchildren, Jessie, J.F., and Mary Lee McCrabb. Cora gave the residue of her estate to only one of the grandchildren, Jessie.

In 1927, Cora and her co-owners sold the 1,448.50 acres of “farm lands and pasture lands” in fee simple to J. L. Dubose. Dubose simultaneously conveyed to Cora and her co-owners an undivided one-half interest in the oil, gas, and minerals in and under the 1,448.50 acres of farm lands and pasture lands. Cora did not change her Last Will and Testament. Cora died in 1929.

Many years later, in 2013, the heirs of J.F. and Mary McCrabb filed a petition for a declaration that Cora’s share of the undivided mineral interest under the “farm lands and pasture lands” passed equally to all three grandchildren. The heirs of Jessie McCrabb filed a counterclaim asking for a declaration that Cora’s entire mineral interest passed to Jessie McCrabb alone pursuant to the residuary clause in the 1924 Last Will and Testament. The trial court sided with the heirs of Jesse McCrabb.

Published on:

In a recent case, FP Stores Inc. v. Tramontina US, Inc., the Houston Court of Appeals provided guidance, for the first time, on what constitutes “bad faith” by a commercial landlord that fails or refuses to return a security deposit.

Facts of the Case


The FP Stores case involved a sublease for commercial premises located in Sugar Land, Texas. The original lease was signed in 2010 for the entire premises. Thereafter, several subleases were signed for various portions of the premises. In this case, the relevant sublessor was FP Stores, the sublessee was Tramontina US, Inc. and the master lessor was ProLogis Texas II, LLC.

Published on:

A recent Texas Supreme Court case, Allen-Pieroni v. Pieroni, teaches that the proper measure of damages for a slander of title suit is the difference between the lost contract price on the property and the fair market value when the slanderous cloud on title is removed.

Texas Slander of Title: Facts of Case

Marc Pieroni was married for 10 years to Bonnie Pieroni. When they divorced, Mr. Pieroni (“Marc”) agreed to pay a total lump sum to the former Mrs. Pieroni (“Bonnie”) of $500,000 in $10,000 increments. Marc never failed to pay and was never in default of his obligations under the divorce decree. Ultimately, Marc paid Bonnie the entire $500,000 by August of 2013.

Published on:

A recent Texas case decided by the San Antonio Court of Appeals, Texas Outfitters Limited, LLC v. Nicholson, offers some lessons on an executive rights owner’s fiduciary duties to the non-executive mineral owner in the context of oil and gas leases. At trial, the executive interest owner, Texas Outfitters, was found to have breached its fiduciary duty and a judgment of $867,654.32 was awarded to the non-executive.

What is “The Executive Right”?

Under Texas law and under the laws of most states, real property can have two co-existing estates – the surface estate and the mineral estate (covering minerals, oil, and gas below the surface). As the Texas Supreme Court has held, the property rights granted by the mineral estate are a “bundle” of rights and one of the “sticks” in the bundle is called the “executive right.” In general, the executive right is the right to make decisions affecting the exploration and development of the mineral estate and, more specifically, is the right to decide whether to execute a mineral lease and to determine the terms of the lease. These concepts were discussed by the Texas Supreme Court in Lesley v. Veterans Land Board of Texas, 352 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. 2011). As discussed in this article, holders of the executive rights sometimes owe fiduciary duties to any non-executive co-tenants.

Published on:

Mineral owners in Texas often sign oil and gas leases that include language that requires that oil or gas be produced in commercially paying quantities in order to keep the lease alive. When production falls below that level, the lease may terminate or lapse, and the mineral interest reverts to the landowner, or to other leases with subsequent rights to the property (i.e., top lease holders). In addition, many leases contain what is called a “shut in royalty” clause, which often goes something like this: “where gas from any well or wells capable of producing gas . . . is not sold or used during or after the primary term and this lease is not otherwise maintained in effect, the lessee may pay or tender … shut-in royalty . . . , and if such shut-in royalty is so paid or tendered

and while lessee’s right to pay or tender same is accruing, it shall be considered that gas is being produced in paying quantities, and this lease shall remain in force during each twelve-month period for which shut-in royalty is so paid or tendered . . .” . It is important to notice that the shut in royalty clause can only be invoked if the well in question is capable of producing in paying quantities.

BP America Production Co. v. Red Deer Resources LLC is a case involving a marginal well operated by BP that was producing at very low levels. BP invoked the shut-in royalty clause of their lease  with the mineral owners. However, questions arose as to whether BP’s use of the shut in royalty clause was valid and whether the lease had actually terminated.

Published on:

As readers may recall, the US Environmental Protection Agency published a draft report in 2015 that concluded that there was no evidence that hydraulic fracturing (“fracing”) led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.

Environmental groups went ballistic over this conclusion. Bowing to public pressure, the EPA decided to rewrite the report. In 2016, the EPA published a redrafted final report that you can read here. That report concluded that activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle “can” impact drinking water resources “under some circumstances”.

Shari Dunn-Norman, associate professor in the petroleum engineering department at Missouri University of Science & Technology, was a member of the 31-person Scientific Advisory Board panel of “subject matter experts” that reviewed EPA’s work during the study. Professor Dunn-Norman recently shared her thoughts about the experience at a Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference put on by the Society of Petroleum Engineers in The Woodlands, Texas.

Published on:

Texas residents are required by law to call 811 before digging any deeper than 16 inches. Once that call is made, all companies with any pipelines, water lines or utility lines in that area come out and mark their respective lines so that the excavation can avoid those lines. This is an obvious and common sense safety measure to protect the public as well as whoever is doing the digging.digger-at-work

House Bill 1818 recently extended the authority of the Texas Railroad Commission regarding pipelines. Previously, the RRC had jurisdiction only over intrastate pipelines (lines that begin and end within Texas). Now, the RRC has authority over interstate pipelines as well (lines that cross state boundaries).

Under the new RRC Rules (that you can review here), excavators must report any damage not later than one hour after the damage occurs. Next, a written report must be filed with the RRC within 30 days.