The Navigator Group et al. v. Susan Davis Van Dyke et al.

Summary

The Texas Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court judgment holding that a 1924 deed reserved the Mulkeys an undivided one-half of the entire mineral estate. The court rejected the argument that the deed separately reserved only a fixed one-sixteenth royalty interest, concluding that the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Van Dyke II governed the dispute. The court also declined to revisit Van Dyke II under the doctrines of stare decisis and law of the case.

Holdings

1. The trial court correctly held that the 1924 deed reserved an undivided one-half of the entire mineral estate, including the corresponding right to royalties, and did not create or reserve a fixed one-sixteenth royalty interest.
2. The court of appeals could not overrule or disregard Van Dyke II because only the Texas Supreme Court may abrogate its own established precedent.
3. The court did not need to reach the presumed-grant doctrine because summary judgment was proper on the independent ground that the express terms of the 1924 deed reserved one-half of the mineral estate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court correctly applied the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Van Dyke II by declaring that the Mulkeys reserved an undivided one-half of the entire mineral estate, rather than one-half of the minerals coupled with a fixed one-sixteenth royalty interest.
2. Whether the court of appeals should disregard or overrule Van Dyke II as wrongly decided.
3. Whether the trial court’s summary judgment could be affirmed on the presumed-grant doctrine as an alternative ground.

Disposition

affirmed