25Mar

Acknowledgment of Record Title Held Not to Defeat Adverse Possession Claim

Scribner v. Wineinger, No. 02-19-00208-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 9170 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 17, 2019, no pet.)

In this leasehold adverse possession case, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that an acknowledgement of the record title holder’s title by an adverse possessor will not defeat an adverse possession claim if the limitations clock had already run out before the acknowledgement occurred. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the oil and gas company on their affirmative defense of adverse possession and limitations title under the five-year statute.

Scribner’s father owned the leasehold interest under an oil and gas lease in Archer County, Texas. In 1999, Scribner’s father assigned all the working interest to Scribner by virtue of an assignment and bill of sale that was filed of record. When Scribner’s father died, the executor of his estate executed an assignment to an oil and gas company, but did not obtain Scribner’s signature. In fact, Scribner was not even aware of the assignment to him until 2016.

Meanwhile, beginning at least in 2010, Parra and its predecessors (who obtained an assignment from the executor following the death of Scribner’s father) operated the lease, received revenue, and paid all taxes. This competing chain of title was reflected in assignments that were also recorded in Archer County.

In June of 2016, an attorney representing Parra discovered the 2002 Assignment, and asked Scribner to execute an assignment in favor of Parra to cure the cloud on title. One of the owners of Parra worked with Scribner’s wife and also sent her a draft assignment and asked her to have Scribner sign it.

Schribner filed suit asserting claims for trespass to try title, and the appellees responded by asserting the affirmative defense of perfection of title by adverse possession under the five-year statute of limitations (section 16.025 of the Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code).

Schribner argued that, when appellees contacted Scribner regarding execution of the proposed assignment, those contacts constituted an acknowledgment of title that precluded any limitations from running in appellees’ favor as a matter of law, and was evidence showing that any possession by appellees was not adverse.

The appellate court held that any acknowledgement of title in 2016 did not preclude limitations from running in favor of the appellees. The court stated that “an acknowledgment of title precludes limitations from running in favor of an adverse-possession claimant only if it occurs before limitation title is completed.” Here, the five-year limitations period ran from April of 2010 through April of 2015, and all of Scribner’s alleged evidence of an “acknowledgment of title” occurred in the summer of 2016. “Accordingly, assuming without deciding that the three contacts at issue constitute “acknowledgements of title” in Scribner, we conclude as a matter of law that they did not preclude limitations from running in favor of Appellees’ predecessors in title.”

The court also held that any acknowledgement of title in 2016 did not create a genuine issue of material fact on whether the possession by the appellees was adverse to Scribner during the statutory time period. The court acknowledged that, “a possessor’s acknowledgement of title in another after the limitation period may tend to show that the possession was not adverse.” Here, however, there was no evidence that the attorney or the owner that contacted Scribner and Scribner’s wife had any affiliation with the lessees who possessed the leasehold interest between April 2010 and April 2015.

The court also rejected Scribner’s argument that appellees’ claim was defeated because they had knowledge of the break in the chain of title. As the court explained, knowledge of a possible break in the chain of title through Scribner might prompt an investigation into the property’s title, but that knowledge is not evidence that the appellees would disavow the title to the property that was cured by their predecessors. “Scribner is again relying upon events that occurred too late to be of help to him.”

As a result, the appellate court determined that the trial court properly quieted title in Parra, decreed that it was the owner of the property, and ordered that Scribner take nothing on any causes of action that relied on his claim of title.

Will Grubb
Will assists clients with complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis on oil & gas. Will’s experience includes drafting dispositive motions for matters in state and federal court, handling interlocutory appeals before Texas courts, arguing hearings, providing in-depth legal research, and assisting in other phases of litigation.
Ana Navarrete
Ana specializes in Oil and Gas litigation. Her experience includes matters in South Texas and the Eagle Ford Shale Play in disputes involving title issues, drilling operations between operator and non-operators, royalty underpayment, offset and development, cessation of production and lease termination, among other issues in the upstream oil and gas sector. Ana is also knowledgeable in matters involving state and federal oil and gas regulatory authorities includes agency hearings, examining the scope and limits of regulatory authority and providing advice about how to comply with or seek exemptions to agency rules.
Austin Brister
Austin represents oil and gas exploration and production companies and landowners in a wide variety of complex commercial litigation matters, including contract and property disputes, royalty disputes, breach of lease cases, lease termination/perpetuation disputes, and an array of other issues in the upstream oil and gas sector. Austin has prosecuted and defended claims in state courts and federal courts. Austin strives to find practical business solutions to complex issues, but if necessary, he works hard to implement effective strategies in the courthouse.
Austin Brister
© Copyright 2012-2018, McGinnis Lochridge LLP. All Rights Reserved. DISCLAIMER: The information in this article is for general information purposes only. This article should not be substituted for legal advice and should not be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or reading this article does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. You are encouraged to contact an attorney for legal advice concerning the information provided in this article.
OR
ARE YOU KEEPING UP TO DATE?
We keep clients and subscribers updated on case law alerts and insightful articles. Join more than 2,000+ in-house attorneys and landmen who receive our occasional alerts and summaries. All for free!
Note: When choosing facebook or google, alerts will be sent to the email listed in that account.
close
OR
ARE YOU KEEPING UP TO DATE?
We keep clients and subscribers updated on case law alerts and insightful articles. Join more than 2,000+ in-house attorneys and landmen who receive our occasional alerts and summaries. All for free!
OR
ARE YOU KEEPING UP TO DATE?
We keep clients and subscribers updated on case law alerts and insightful articles. Join more than 2,000+ in-house attorneys and landmen who receive our occasional alerts and summaries. All for free!
Note: When choosing facebook or google, alerts will be sent to the email listed in that account.
ARE YOU KEEPING UP TO DATE?
We keep clients and subscribers updated on case law alerts and insightful articles. Join more than 2,000+ in-house attorneys and landmen who receive our occasional alerts and summaries. All for free!