Laborde Properties, L.P. and Laborde Management, LLC v. U.S. Shale Energy II, LLC, and Raymond B. Roush, Ruthie Roush Dodge, and David E. Roush

Court of Appeals of Texas

Laborde Properties, L.P. and Laborde Management, LLC v. U.S. Shale Energy II, LLC, and Raymond B. Roush, Ruthie Roush Dodge, and David E. Roush

533 S.W.3d 447

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 28, 2016·No. 04-16-00168-CV·Published

Opinion

DISSENTING OPINION

Opinion Dissenting To the Denial op Appellees’ Motion fob En Banc Reconsideration

Dissenting Opinion by:

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel opinion gives no effect to the deed’s reservation of “an undivided one-half (1/2) interest” in “the” royalty and fails to adhere to longstanding harmonization principles. The panel opinion also misapplies the estate misconception theory by holding the theory supports finding a fixed interest. As a result of misinterpreting the deed’s reservation,-.the panel opinion conflicts with prior decisions .of this court, the Supreme Court of Texas, and other courts of appeals. E.g., Hysaw v. Dawkins, 483 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Tex. 2016); Graham v. Prochaska, 429 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied); Coghill v. Griffith, 358 S.W.3d 834, 840 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, pet. denied); Hausser v. Cuellar, 345 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. denied) (op. on en banc reh’g). Because the panel opinion creates title uncertainty and will likely .generate future title disputes, en banc reconsideration is necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.2(c). I therefore respectfully dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DISSENTING OPINION

Opinion Dissenting To the Denial op Appellees’ Motion fob En Banc Reconsideration

Dissenting Opinion by:

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel opinion gives no effect to the deed’s reservation of “an undivided one-half (1/2) interest” in “the” royalty and fails to adhere to longstanding harmonization principles. The panel opinion also misapplies the estate misconception theory by holding the theory supports finding a fixed interest. As a result of misinterpreting the deed’s reservation,-.the panel opinion conflicts with prior decisions .of this court, the Supreme Court of Texas, and other courts of appeals. E.g., Hysaw v. Dawkins, 483 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Tex. 2016); Graham v. Prochaska, 429 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied); Coghill v. Griffith, 358 S.W.3d 834, 840 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, pet. denied); Hausser v. Cuellar, 345 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. denied) (op. on en banc reh’g). Because the panel opinion creates title uncertainty and will likely .generate future title disputes, en banc reconsideration is necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.2(c). I therefore respectfully dissent.

Laborde Properties, L.P. and Laborde Management, LLC v. U.S. Shale Energy II, LLC, and Raymond B. Roush, Ruthie Roush Dodge, and David E. Roush, 533 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

533 S.W.3d 447 (Laborde Properties, L.P. and Laborde Management, LLC v. U.S. Shale Energy II, LLC, and Raymond B. Roush, Ruthie Roush Dodge, and David E. Roush) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related