Case Analyzes TX Farm Animal Liability Act When Horse Injures Bridesmaid at Wedding Venue

Originally published by Tiffany Dowell.

 

Lobue v. Hanson, a case involving a wedding venue, a bridesmaid, a horse, and the Farm Animal Liability Act recently caught my attention.   [Read case here.]

Background

Todd Hanson owns a fifty-six acre property in Crosby, which he rents as a wedding venue called The Barn at Four Pines Ranch.  The weddings are held in a barn on the property.  Cattle and horses are on the property, but there is a fence separating the livestock from the barn.

When the bride and groom arrived on their wedding day, they noticed that the horses were in the area that should have been enclosed for the attendees.  About an hour before the wedding began, Melissa Lobue, a bridesmaid, walked over to the horses and began to pet one named Shiloh.  When she moved to pet a second horse, “Shiloh disagreed, and grabbed her by the arm, shook her, and tossed her to the ground.”

Lobue filed suit against Hanson for damages.  She filed a premises liability claim, alleging that Hanson failed to warn her about the horse, failed to warn of his viscous tendencies, and that by leaving the horse loose, unattended, and in an unsafe place, he breached the duty to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition.  She also alleged negligence, based on Hanson’s failure to warn, failure to properly handle the horse, and having the horse in an unsafe place.

Hanson responded seeking to dismiss the case on two grounds:  (1) the Farm Animal Liability act precludes her claims; and (2) the uncontroverted evidence that Hanson was not aware of Shiloh displaying any dangerous tendencies, thereby defeating a required element of her negligence claims.

The trial court granted summary judgment in Hanson’s favor, dismissing her claims.

Appellate Court Opinion

The appellate court affirmed the dismissal.

Farm Animal Liability Act

The Farm Animal Liability Act precludes liability against “any person…” for “property damages or damages arising from the personal injury or death of a participant in a farm animal activity or livestock show if the property damage, injury, or death results from the dangers or conditions that are an inherent risk of a farm animal activity…”  [To read more on the Farm Animal Liability Act, click here, here,  and here.]   An inherent risk is broadly defined by statute, including “the propensity of a farm animal to behave in ways that may result in personal injury or death to a person on or around it…”

The court noted that in order to successfully qualify for the immunity offered by the Farm Animal Liability Act, Hanson had to prove the following:  (1) Hanson qualified to seek protection under the Act; (2) Lobue was a “participant”; (3) in a farm animal activity; and (4) the injury was a result of an inherent risk.

The parties agreed that the first and fourth elements were met.  Hanson qualified as “any person” and an unfamiliar person approaching and petting horses involves an inherent risk.  The parties disagreed, however, as to whether the second and third elements were met.

The Act defines participant as “a person who engages in a farm animal activity, without regard to whether the person is an amateur or professional, or whether the person pays for the activity or participates in the activity for free.”  Last year, the Texas Supreme Court held that the Act applies to participants at shows, exhibitions, rodeos, and trail rides generally, but does not apply to ranch employees injured in the course of their employment.  [Read prior blog post here.]   The Act includes a number of actions in the definition of “farm animal activity” including an “event…that involves farm animals” and  handling farm animals.”  Neither the term “handling” nor “event” are defined in the Act.

Lobue claims she was not a participant because she was not engaged in a farm animal activity.  Hanson, on the other hand, claims her injuries occurred while “handling” Shiloh, and as part of an “event” involving a farm animal, fitting squarely within the statue.  The court looked at the dictionary and USDA regulatory definitions of handling and ruled that the trial court did not err in holding that by petting him, Lobue “handled” Shiloh.  By petting the horse, “she was ‘handling’ him in this literal sense of the term” making her a participant in a farm animal activity.

Lobue mentioned in passing that the Act does not apply when a “spectator” is injured (rather than a participant) but the court noted that she did not adequately brief that issue or offer evidence or explanation why she should be considered a spectator.

Further, the appellate court held that the trial court would not have erred to find the wedding qualified as an “event…that involves farm animals” also falling within the definition of a farm animal activity.  The venue’s website mentions livestock on the property as an attraction and offers pictures with the horses as part of the wedding package options.  Hanson testified that as part of the contract with the bride and groom, he advised them to warn guests not to approach the animals, indicating that the parties at least contemplated possible interaction with the cattle and horses.

Exceptions to the Farm Animal Liability Act

Lobue also claimed that the trial court failed to find that an exception to the Farm Animal Liability Act applied, meaning that the Act’s protections were inapplicable to Hanson.

First, she claims that Hanson failed to post warning signs as required for a farm animal professional under the statute.   The court agreed that the signage was not present, but held that the requirement of signs “is not in fact a statutory exception to the liability shield.”  The court indicated that the signage requirement was not listed in the same statutory section as the other exceptions to the applicability of the Act.  “While the provision mandates signage, it is without any defined penalty for non-compliance.”  Thus, despite the lack of signs, the court held this did not preclude the Act’s protections from applying to Hanson.

Second, Lobue raised the exception stating that the limitation of liability does not apply if “a person provided the farm animal or livestock animal and the person did not make a reasonable and prudent effort to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the farm animal activity or livestock show and determine the ability of the participant to safely manage the farm animal or livestock animal, taking into account the participant’s representations of ability.”  The court held this exception inapplicable because she did not allege it was this lack of effort that caused her damages.

Thus, the court sided affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case.

Concurring Opinion 

Judge Spain wrote a one-sentence concurrence, saying that he agrees with the outcome, but wants to note that the court does not and need not address how the “spectator” status relates to the summary judgement motion.

Key Takeaways

This case is a good reminder for all farm animal owners that unexpected injuries can occur at any time.  Here are a few of my key takeaways.

First, as I say with every case against a rural landowner, it is critical to have liability insurance.  Remember that liability not only covers a landowner up to the policy limits if a covered claim is made, but it also provides a defense in the event a lawsuit is filed.  Even in a situation like this one, where the landowner was able to prevail and get the case dismissed, he would have likely encountered substantial legal fees to do so, and having the defense provided by insurance would alleviate that expense.

Second, I find the court’s analysis of the lack of the sign interesting.  The statute certainly does require a farm animal professional to have the signage posted.  However, as the court pointed out, the statute does not spell out the consequences of failing to do so, and the lack of signage is not listed as an exception to the Act’s protection.  I’ve not seen a court address this issue previously, so that was interesting to consider.  That said, I would still recommend that all farm animal professionals have the sign posted as required by the Act to ensure protection.

Finally, keep in mind that there are amendments to the Farm Animal Liability Act currently pending in the Texas Legislature.  Here is a blog post I did summarizing the bill about a month ago.  It continues to make its way through the process, and one additional change of note is that the most recent version of the bill would add “a honeybee kept in a managed colony” to the definition of a farm animal. The bill passed the House and was referred to the Senate State Affairs Committee.  [Read current bill draft here.]

 

The post Case Analyzes TX Farm Animal Liability Act When Horse Injures Bridesmaid at Wedding Venue appeared first on Texas Agriculture Law.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/3f2sYMq
via Abogado Aly Website

April showers bring en banc opinions

Originally published by David Coale.

Continuing the shower of spring en banc opinions from the Fifth Court, an eight-justice majority concluded that any “substantive nexus” between the relevant safety standards and health care was too attenuated to implicate the Texas Medical Liability Act on the following facts: “On May 25, 2014, Faber went to pick her mother up at Dayspring [Assisted Living Community] to take her to a hair styling appointment. Faber parked in Dayspring’s parking lot and asked a Dayspring employee to help Millie to the car. Millie, who had become a Dayspring resident only a week earlier, used a rolling walker and sat on it facing backwards as the Dayspring employee pushed her along the public sidewalk outside Dayspring’s entrance. Millie’s walker got caught in a large crack
in the sidewalk, causing her to fall and hit her head on the concrete.” 

A 5-justice dissent saw otherwise: “The facts that form the basis of Faber’s suit show that Smith did not simply trip over a crack in the sidewalk. Instead, she fell because a staff member of the health care institution in which she resided pushed her over a crack in the sidewalk while she was seated in a wheeled walker causing her to fall. Because of this, Faber’s claim is inextricably intertwined with the conduct of, and duties owed
by, Collin Creek as a health care provider.”  Faber v. Collin Creek Assisted Living Center, No. 05-18-00827-CV (May 3, 2021).

The post April showers bring en banc opinions appeared first on 600 Commerce.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2PSONp3
via Abogado Aly Website

TLAP debuts new, free CLE targeting depression and suicide among lawyers

Originally published by Amy Starnes.

The Texas Lawyers’ Assistance Program has created a one-hour video and educational program that seeks to educate the legal community about the signs that someone may be suffering from depression and vulnerable to suicide.

Lawyers can earn one hour of free ethics continuing legal education credit for watching the film Just Ask: How We Must Stop Minding Our Own Business in the Legal World. It can be viewed by selecting the “free CLE” tab texasbarcle.com. It can also be found along with other resources on TLAP’s website tlaphelps.org.

TLAP hopes the film helps legal professionals understand when they or their colleagues might be suffering from depression and suicidal thoughts. The film includes personal stories from lawyers on how suicide and depression touched their lives and provides concrete ways to help colleagues or loved ones who may be struggling with suicidal thoughts.

Lawyers are consistently at or near the top of the list of all professionals in suicide rates. Research shows that lawyers are the most-often depressed professionals out of 105 professions, and suicide is the third leading cause of death among attorneys after cancer and heart disease.

“There is no issue more important to TLAP or the State Bar of Texas than preventing suicides among our colleagues in the legal profession,” TLAP Director Chris Ritter said. “We hope this program can help educate legal professionals about this critical issue.”

The film’s release is particularly timely as May 3-7 is Well-Being Week in Law, an event created by the Institute for Well-Being in Law and dedicated to the betterment of the legal profession by focusing on a holistic approach to well-being. The film and accompanying educational project was made possible by a $54,000 grant from the Texas Bar Foundation.

The Texas Lawyers’ Assistance Program, now in its 31st year, provides confidential help for lawyers, law students, and judges who have substance use and/or mental health concerns. Call or text 800-343-TLAP (8527) to get help.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/3eV1xUr
via Abogado Aly Website

Unemployment Fraud – Yet Another Scam Surges During the Pandemic

Originally published by Lori-Ann Craig.

Image by mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

In addition to turning the world upside down, COVID-19 has certainly created an environment conducive to scammers. Ranging from fake treatments and tests to undelivered goods, the early days of the pandemic provided scammers an opportunity to exploit people’s fears and uncertainty and their efforts to keep themselves and their families safe from this new virus. As the days of the pandemic continued to keep people indoors and in their virtual environments, the scams continued as well. Soon, we were reading about attempts to separate Americans from their economic stimulus checks and to take advantage of those who were desperately seeking appointments for vaccinations. Unemployment fraud, although not something new, has once again risen to the forefront.

Unemployment fraud can take many shapes. In some cases, an individual or an employer will file a false claim in his or her own name and knowingly collect benefits based on that false claim. This type of fraud is known as unemployment insurance fraud. However, there is a second type of unemployment fraud that is much more serious: unemployment identity theft. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, there has been a “surge in fraudulent unemployment claims filed by organized crime rings using stolen identities that were accessed or purchased from past data breaches.” The stolen identities are then used to file fraudulent claims, allowing the criminals to collect unemployment benefits, often from multiple states. In addition, this fraudulent activity can cause delays in the issuance and receipt of benefits for legitimate claimants. Since the beginning of the pandemic, Texas Workforce Commission, the state agency charged with administering unemployment benefits, has reportedly paid more than $691 million in suspected fraudulent unemployment claims. Although that figure represents only a small portion of claims, it is evidence of the widespread nature of this rising form of identity theft. In most cases of unemployment fraud, the victim does not become aware of the fraudulent claim or the related identity theft until they file a claim for benefits, they receive a notice from a governmental agency about an unemployment claim, they receive an IRS Form 1099-G, or they are notified by their employer while they are still employed.

So, what can you do to prevent the fraud from happening in the first place? Aside from keeping informed of the types of scams that exist and the methods scammers might use to perpetrate the fraud or by signing up for a fee-based identity protection service, there is not much that a victim can do to prevent the fraud. However, there are steps that the victim can take to mitigate the damage arising from the theft of their personal information:

• Report the unemployment identity fraud to the state where the theft occurred. In Texas, victims can report the fraud to the Texas Workforce Commission through its UI Fraud Submission portal at the following link: TWC Web Client – Forms – Texas Workforce Commission UI Fraud Submission (state.tx.us). Victims can also call the TWC Fraud Hotline at 800-252-3642 or send an email to TWC.fraud@twc.state.tx.us.

• Report the fraud to your employer.

• Notify one of the three credit reporting agencies of the fraud and have them issue a fraud alert.

• When filing your income tax, only include income that you received.

• Check your credit report weekly for any suspicious activity. You can do so for free by visiting AnnualCreditReport.com.

• Report the fraud to other governmental entities, such as the Federal Trade Commission through IdentityTheft.gov and the U.S. Department of Justice through its National Center for Disaster Fraud. Additionally, the IRS recommends that victims consider taking part in the IRS Identity Protection PIN Program that helps prevent thieves from filing federal tax returns in the victim’s name. In Texas, victims can also report the fraud to the Texas State Auditor’s Office by mail, email, or fax or though the use of its online web portal.

• Identity theft is a crime, so consider filing a report with local law enforcement authorities and the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Unfortunately, identity theft can occur without the victim’s knowledge and can create lots of headaches and problems for its victims. The best thing that one can do is be vigilant and know what to do if it happens to them.

Additional Reading

FBI Sees Spike in Fraudulent Unemployment Insurance Claims Filed Using Stolen Identities – Federal Bureau of Investigation

Is a Scammer Getting Unemployment Benefits in Your Name? – Federal Trade Commission

The Pandemic Created a “Perfect Storm” for Unemployment Fraud. How You Can Stay Protected – NextAdvisor in Partnership with TIME

Unemployment Fraud Claims – TexasLawHelp.org

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/3urqkpN
via Abogado Aly Website

Recent Tax Court Case and Theft-Loss Deductions

Originally published by Fernando Juarez.

A recent Tax Court case dealt with a familiar topic: Theft losses. I.R.C. section 165 has historically allowed taxpayers to deduct three types of losses: those incurred in a trade or business, those incurred in a transaction entered into for profit, or losses arising from other causes, such as theft.  (Note, however, that due to certain changes pursuant to the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017, individuals may be prevented from taking certain theft losses.)

A theft for these purposes is defined broadly, and encompasses various criminal conduct, including larceny, embezzlement, and robbery. Treas Regs. Sec. 1.165-8 (d).  A taxpayer must prove that the theft occurred under the law of the jurisdiction where the alleged loss occurred, See Monteleone v. Commissioner, 34 T.C. 688 , 692 (1960), the amount of loss, and the date that the loss was discovered.  Taxpayers who can establish these element may be entitled to deduct a theft loss.  (Again, the TCJA may limit a taxpayer’s ability to deduct a theft loss.

Below is a summary of the Tax Court’s recent decision:

Ronnie S. Baum and Teresa K. Baum v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 2021-46 April 27, 2021 | Kerrigan, J. | Dkt. No. 19567-19

Short Summary:  The case discusses the substantiation of expenses, and the deductibility of theft losses under I.R.C. 165.

Mr. and Mrs. Baum (the taxpayers) were self-employed during 2015 and 2016 (years at issue). Mr. Baum was a consultant for Harrington Capital Partners, LLC, for which he was the sole owner. Mrs. Baum was a realtor. During the years at issue, the taxpayers claimed multiple deductions on their Schedule C, such as meals and entertainment expenses, offices and car and truck expenses.

In 2012, Mr. Baum acquired stock of Globe Protect, Inc. a company that manufactured filters to clean saline water. It must be noted that this opportunity was presented to Mr. Baum by a third party, a Mr. Zeilinger, and the stock was acquired from Mr. Zeilinger’s mother.

Despite the promising prospective for the Globe, Mr. Zeilinger filed for bankruptcy in 2014 and some other creditors obtained judgment in their favor. Mr. Baum did not receive a favorable judgment. However, the taxpayers claimed the loss suffered from the investment on their 2015 tax return, Schedule A, as a theft deduction. Such return and the 2016 tax return were filed until 2018.

Key Issues: Whether the loss suffered by the taxpayers qualifies as a “theft loss” under Section 165.

Primary Holdings:

To be deductible as a theft loss, the loss must arise from a theft according to the laws of the jurisdiction where the loss was incurred, but also, the taxpayer must determine the amount of the loss and the year in which it was sustained. Failure to meet any of these standards translates in the rejection of the loss.

Key Points of Law:  

• Schedule C deductions.

I.R.C. 162 allows taxpayers to deduct ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in carrying a trade or business. Some of these deductions, to be deductible, must comply with certain substantiation rules. Here, the taxpayers did not provide any proof to support the amount, time, and business purpose of the various expenses, such as the travel expenses, meals and lodging, among others. Consequently, such expenses are disallowed, sustaining the Commissioner’s determination.

• Theft loss deduction.

I.R.C. 165 allows taxpayers to deduct three types of losses: those incurred in a trade or business, those incurred in a transaction entered into for profit or losses arising from other causes, such as theft.

Theft is defined broadly, and encompasses various criminal conducts including larceny, embezzlement and robbery. Treas Regs. Sec. 1.165-8 (d). Moreover, the taxpayer must prove that the theft occurred under the law of the jurisdiction wherein the alleged loss occurred, See Monteleone v. Commissioner, 34 T.C. 688 , 692 (1960), the amount of loss and the date that the loss was discovered.

The Court determined that “Theft” under California laws. Under the California Penal Code, the concept of theft consolidates various similar criminal conducts, such as larceny, theft by false pretenses and embezzlement. Cal. Penal Code sec. 484(a). Taxpayers claimed they suffered losses from “fraud in inducement”, directing the analysis to false pretenses, which includes elements on the defendant such as intent to defraud the owner of the property, making false representations and obtaining title of the owner’s property as consequence of the reliance. In this case, the Court found that the petitioners did not provided any evidence that supported that Mr. Zeilinger made false representations or with the intent to defraud. Therefore, this element was not met.

The Court also ruled that even if a theft was present, the petitioners still would not be able to claim the loss because they had failed to prove the amount of the loss and to establish the year that the loss was sustained. If the taxpayer has “reasonable prospect of recovery”, the loss is not sustained. Treas. Regs. Sec. 1.165-1 (d)(3). Here, the taxpayers did not have a reasonable prospect of recovery of their investment in 2015 because the bankruptcy proceeding for Mr. Zeilinger was still in Court.

Alternatively, the taxpayers argued that the loss was deductible as a loss incurred in a trade or business as provided by Section 165(c)(1). This argument is flawed because the involvement of the petitioners in Globe was that of an investor, and investment losses do not fall within this exception.

The second alternative argument was that the loss was deductible as a worthless security. I.R.C. 165(g). Because the taxpayers did not provide any evidence that the shares of Globe became worthless in 2015, such rule does not apply.

• Penalties.

The penalties were sustained under I.R.C. 6651(a)(1) because the tax returns were filed after the due date, and the taxpayers failed to prove that the failure to file was due to reasonable cause.

Insight: Theft losses is an area with particular circumstances. However, it is clear that the taxpayers must provide evidence to support the three-factor test mentioned by the Court in this case. More importantly, the determination of a “theft” under State jurisdiction must be given special consideration, because failure to fall within the specific scope of a “theft” in accordance with such jurisdiction will prevent the taxpayer from moving forward under the court’s analysis.

The post Recent Tax Court Case and Theft-Loss Deductions appeared first on Freeman Law.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/3vL5uCc
via Abogado Aly Website

May the Laws Be with You This Star Wars Day

Originally published by Sabrina Davis.

2021 marks 10 years since Star Wars Day had its first organized celebration in Toronto on May 4, 2011, although sticklers might argue its actual 10th Anniversary will occur in 2023, as “In late 2012, Disney purchased Lucasfilm and has officially observed the holiday at Disneyland and Walt Disney World ever since.” (To the non-geeks reading this, May 4 was chosen for Star Wars Day as a “pun on the catchphrase ‘May the Force be with you’ as ‘May the Fourth be with you.’”)

Instead of a recitation and summary of the “Top 5 Star Wars Verdicts and Settlements,” this blog post focuses on the legal aspects of Star Wars in two ways: (1) the application of American law to the Star Wars galaxy and (2) an overview of laws within the Star Wars galaxy.

Application of American Law

• The Rebel Bunch: The Legal Status of Rebel Fighters in Rogue One

• Could the Mos Eisley Cantina Discriminate Against Serving Droids?

• The Force of Law Awakens: “Star Wars” and the Laws of War

• A “Star Wars” Constitution: The “Bill of Rights”: Find out which freedoms surveyed lawyers thought a “‘Star Wars Constitution’ would uphold.”

• A Review of Star Wars Law: A lawyer turned sports blogger answers 8 burning legal questions from the Star Wars galaxy, including whether Chewbacca is an employee.

Star Wars Galaxy Laws

Where to begin? According to an article published in Slaw, Canada’s online legal magazine, “Star Wars laws can be categorized into general Codes and regulations‎, Galactic Alliance and Galactic Republic laws and acts‎, Imperial laws and acts‎, New Republic laws and acts‎, and Sith Empire laws and acts‎. There are even obscure legal systems which reflect natural law principles such as Ugorian Divine Law.”

The full round-up of Star Wars laws can be found here, within Wookiepedia: The Star Wars Wiki.

Real Space Laws

If you are interested in learning more about the actual laws of space for planet Earth, check out the Harris County Robert W. Hainsworth Law Library’s digital exhibit on Space Law, available here.

Additional Resources

• The Star Wars Encyclopedia

• How Star Wars Illuminates Constitutional Law (and Authorship), a book review by Cass R. Sunstein of How Star Wars Conquered the Universe: The Past, Present, and Future of a Multibillion Dollar Franchise, by Chris Taylor

• A physicist explains the science of hyperspace—and why Star Wars isn’t entirely fiction

• Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction

• For Star Wars Day videos, news, activities, and blog, see: https://www.starwars.com/star-wars-day.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2RtyEqj
via Abogado Aly Website

A Different Lesson in Property Stipulations

Originally published by Charles Sartain.

Co-author Brittany Blakey

The Texas Supreme Court in Concho Resources, Inc. v. Ellison enforced a boundary stipulation involving an unambiguous deed about which there had been no dispute. You can refer to our earlier post to understand the facts, the boundary, and the Court of Appeals decison.

More facts

The Boundary Stipulation of Ownership of Mineral Interests between the owners of the Northwest Tract and Southeast Tract mineral estates declared the boundary of the mineral estate to be different from the public road and was recorded in the Irion County public records. In 2008 Sampson sent a letter to Ellison, operator of leases on one tract, enclosing the stipulation and requesting that Ellison “signify your acceptance of the description of the [Northwest Tract] as set out in the Stipulation… [.]” Ellison signed and several wells were drilled. His wife Marsha succeded to his interest after his death and sued alleging trespass to try title and other claims.

The Court of Appeals

Concho contended that by signing the 2008 letter Ellison ratified the stipulation as a matter of law, which bound Marsha as his successor. The trial court agreed but the appellate court deemed the boundary stipulation to be void. Specifically, that court held that the stipulation was not itself a “conveyance” of the disputed acreage.  The 2008 letter could not have ratified the stipulation because it was not capable of being ratified. The 1927 deed was “objectively unambiguous” as to the “true” boundary line location (i.e., the public road), and the mineral owners’ agreement to establish the line elsewhere did not pass muster.

The Supreme Court

The Court disagreed and ruled that imposing an “objective uncertainty” requirement would “scuttle boundary agreements as a mechanism to avoid litigation” because parties will never know whether their informal settlement of a boundary dispute is effective until it is declared so by a court. The opinion emphasizes a public policy favoring settlements of disputes outside the courtroom, even if those informal settlements do not technically cross every legal “T” and dot every formal “I”.

The court qualified the ruling to declare that such informal boundary stipulations cannot retroactively bind others with an interest in the tracts who were not parties to the agreement. That qualification did not apply here because Ellison was the party who “[signified] [his] acceptance of” the boundary stipulation.

Ellison’s several equitable arguments and affirmative defenses were briefly discussed and disregarded.

WHAT OTHERS SAY

The result lays waste to Texas title law.                    

So predicted by the Texas Land Title Association in an amicus brief:

• The result ultimately reached by the court would upend long-standing and well-established Texas law on real property descriptions and conveyancing solely to benefit (greedy? … they didn’t say that but you can read between the lines) oilfield operators’ attempt to gain an additional 154 acres of leasehold.
• There was never ambiguity or uncertainty in the 1927 deed’s legal description.
• Any title examiner reviewing the deed would readily conclude that the public road was the southern boundary of the Northwest tract.
• The 2008 boundary stipulation retroactively changed boundaries without evidence of error or dispute.
• Reversing the lower court would (did) inject unnecessary uncertainty into deed records and call into question the standard interpretation of legal descriptions.
• The 2008 boundary stipulation was not a valid legal conveyance:  There was no grantor and grantee, there were no operative words of grant, it was not signed by the original grantors, it was not agreed by all parties with an interest in the mineral estate, and Ellison’s ratification was never recorded.
• A void boundary agreement cannot be ratified and thus affect the record chain of title by an unrecorded letter agreement. That two tenant/lessees should be able to reallocate leased property denies the rights of other parties in interest, including the lessors, and creates ambiguity and uncertainty in deed records.
• Petitioners’ position (and now, the result) flies in the face of the recently adopted Correction Instrument Statute.

The Court of Appeals laid waste to Texas title law.

So said Granador Operating (successor-in-interest to Concho and thus having a dog in the fight) who whispered the soothing words that make our Supreme Court swoon: Freedom of contract and public policy encouraging mineral production. According to the amicus brief:

• The Court of Appeals ruling was extraordinary and unprecedented and destabilizes property rights.
• The ruling removed the power of Texans to resolve their disputes without resort to judicial intervention and discouraged the development of oil and gas resources by punishing operators who rely on arms-length agreements when determining title to land.
• Unambiguous, arms-length contracts should be enforced under their plain terms and private resolution of disagreements should be embraced by the judicial system.
• Development of oil and gas resources is beneficial to the State and should be encouraged.
• The result of the Court of Appeals opinion is that an arms-length boundary agreement can never be relied upon.

TXOGA offered aguments similar to Granador’s.

It’s enough to drive a person to drink. Your musical interlude, whiskey edition:

Rye whiskey

A two-fer or

sometimes anything.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/33eQOyP
via Abogado Aly Website