Bixler v. Oro Management, L.L.C.

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court held that a prior handwritten agreement merged into a subsequent warranty deed and could not be used as parol evidence to contradict the deed's conveyance of the property to the parties as tenants in common. Because the deed conveyed possessory interests in both the surface and mineral estates, Ron Bixler was entitled to partition of his mineral interest. The court reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment in his favor on that issue.

Holdings

1. The napkin agreement merged into the subsequently executed and delivered warranty deed because it concerned deed-related matters, including title and possession; the warranty deed therefore governed the parties' property interests.
2. The warranty deed conveyed the described mining claims to Bixler and Oro as tenants in common, giving Bixler a possessory interest in both the surface and subsurface, including the mineral estate.
3. Parol evidence may be considered to rebut the presumption that cotenants hold equal shares, but it may not be used to contradict an unambiguous deed by proving that a grantee received no possessory interest in property conveyed by the deed.
4. Bixler was entitled to partition of his mineral interest because the warranty deed conveyed him a possessory undivided interest in the mineral estate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the parties' prior unrecorded napkin agreement controlled their interests in the property instead of the subsequent recorded warranty deed.
2. Whether the napkin agreement was sufficiently definite to constitute an enforceable contract.
3. Whether the napkin agreement could be used to establish that Bixler had no possessory or ownership interest in the mineral estate and therefore no right to partition it.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded