Justia Texas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

As a general matter, an overriding royalty on oil and gas production is free of production costs but must bear its share of postproduction costs unless the parties agree otherwise. In this case, the Hyder family leased 948 mineral acres. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC acquired the lessee’s interest. The Hyders and Chesapeake agreed that the overriding royalty was free of production costs under the lease but disputed whether it was also free of postproduction costs. The trial court rendered judgment for the Hyders, awarding them $575,359 in postproduction costs that Chesapeake wrongfully deducted from their overriding royalty. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lease in this case clearly freed the gas royalty of postproduction costs and did the same for the overriding royalty. View "Chesapeake Exploration, LLC v. Hyder" on Justia Law

The State condemned two adjacent parcels of property that the owners had leased to Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. for outdoor advertising. Clear Channel had built a billboard on each parcel. The State maintained that its condemnation of the realty did not include the billboards themselves because they were removable property for which no compensation was due. Consistent with the State’s position, the special commissioners’ awards included no compensation for the billboard structures. The landowners and Clear Channel objected to the awards. In addition, Clear Channel counterclaimed for inverse condemnation of the sign structures. After a jury trial, the trial court awarded Clear Channel $268,235.27 for the billboards less credits for the amounts already received from the commissioners’ award, concluding that a billboard may be a fixture to be valued with the land. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Clear Channel’s billboard structures were fixtures and should have been valued as part of the land; and (2) while Clear Channel was due compensation for the sign structures, it was not entitled to value the structures based on the income from its advertising operations, and evidence of that income was inadmissible. Remanded. View "State v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc." on Justia Law

Respondents obtained a home-equity loan from Wells Fargo Bank. After Respondents stopped making loan payments, Wells Fargo filed an application in the district court for an expedited court order authorizing foreclosure. Respondents filed a separate and original declaratory judgment action that invoked the automatic stay and dismissal provisions of Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.11. Wells Fargo filed an amended answer asserting a counterclaim for declaratory judgment and requesting attorney’s fees pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. The trial court granted Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment and awarded attorney’s fees, concluding that Respondents had defaulted on their home-equity loan. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment but reversed the attorney’s fee award, concluding that neither party had pleaded a cognizable claim for declaratory relief, and the non-recourse status of the home-equity loan prohibited a personal judgment for attorney’s fees against Respondents. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) because Respondents failed to preserve any challenge to the characterization of their own claim for declaratory relief, the trial court was authorized to enter a judgment awarding Wells Fargo its attorney’s fees; and (2) neither the parties’ loan agreement nor the Texas Constitution prohibited a personal judgment against Respondents for attorney’s fees. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Respondent borrowed money from Bank pursuant to a construction loan agreement and promissory note. Defendant secured his obligations by executing a deed of trust on property. After Respondent defaulted on the note, Bank foreclosed its contractual deed of trust lien on the property. Bank purchased the property for less than the secured debt. Respondent sued Bank, arguing that Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 51.003 required Bank to offset the property’s fair market value on the date of foreclosure against any judgment in favor of Bank. Bank counterclaimed for damages and attorney’s fees. The trial court rendered judgment for Bank, concluding that section 51.003 did not apply. The court of appeals reversed, determining (1) Respondent’s deficiency must be calculated pursuant to section 51.003, and the term “fair market value” as used in the statute is the historical willing-seller/willing-buyer definition of fair market value; and (2) a factual question existed requiring further proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 51.003 applies to this case, but the term “fair market value” in that section does not equate precisely to the historical definition; and (2) the trial court did not err in its finding as to the section 51.003 fair market value of the property on the date of the foreclosure sale. View "PlainsCapital Bank v. Martin" on Justia Law

Petitioners and Respondents were adjacent landowners who disputed ownership of a tract of land in a heavily wooded area. Respondents asserted record title to the tract. Petitioners asserted adverse possession. Respondents filed a suit to quiet title and a declaratory judgment action. The trial court granted summary judgment for Petitioners, concluding that Respondents did not have record title. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Respondents had record title to the tract, and remanded to the trial court to consider Petitioners’ adverse possession claim. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and affirmed that of the trial court, holding that Respondents did not have record title to the tract. View "Stribling v. Millican DPC Partners, LP" on Justia Law

After an investigation, the City of Houston declared the Park Memorial condominiums uninhabitable. Because the condominium owners did not apply for an occupancy certificate or make necessary repairs within the requisite period of time, the City ordered all residents to vacate the complex. A group of owners later brought this inverse-condemnation action, alleging that their property was taken when they were forced to vacate. The trial court sustained the City’s plea to the jurisdiction, concluding that the owners had not alleged a taking. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the condominium owners’ claim failed because they did not allege a taking. View "City of Houston v. Carlson" on Justia Law

Petitioner granted Respondent a right of way to construct a pipeline across Petitioner’s property. The parties signed an agreement requiring Respondent to install the pipeline by boring underground in order to preserve the trees on the property. The construction company Respondent hired, however, cut down several hundred feet of trees. A jury found Respondent liable for damage to Petitioner’s property on both breach of contract and trespass theories and awarded damages both to compensate Petitioner for the reasonable cost to restore the property and for the intrinsic value of the destroyed trees. The court of appeals reversed based on the trial court’s failure to submit a jury question on whether the injury to the property was temporary or permanent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the general rule that temporary injury to real property entitles the owner to damages commensurate with the cost of restoring the property and permanent injury to the property entitles the owner commensurate with the loss in the fair market value to the property as a whole applies when the wrongful conduct causing the injury stems from breach of contract rather than tort; (2) the common law exception to this general rule that entitles the landowner to damages in keeping with the intrinsic value of the destroyed trees applies in this case; and (3) any error in the jury charge related to such damages was harmless. Remanded. View "Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. v. Enbridge Pipelines, LP" on Justia Law

Respondents claimed that a road that was necessary for access to the party’s landlocked, previously unified parcel was a prior use easement. The trial court granted summary judgment for Respondents, finding they conclusively proved the existence of a prior use easement. The court of appeals affirmed. Among the issues before the Supreme Court was whether Respondents had an implied easement over Petitioners’ land despite a lack of continued necessity. The Court’s disposition of the first issue precluded it from reaching the remaining issues. The Court held (1) a party claiming an implied easement for roadway access to a landlocked, previously unified parcel must pursue a necessity easement rather than a prior use easement; and (2) because Respondents sought an implied easement for roadway access to their landlocked, previously unified parcels, the case must be remanded for them to elect whether to pursue a necessity easement claim. View "Hamrick v. Ward" on Justia Law

The question presented to the Supreme Court in this case was whether Texas recognizes a legal right to stigma damages, which represent damage to the reputation of realty. Plaintiff, a ranch owner, sued Defendant, the owner of a metal processing facility, for nuisance, trespass and damages after the Commission found that Defendant had committed an unauthorized discharge of industrial hazardous waste that had affected Plaintiff’s property. As to damages, Plaintiff sought only a loss of the fair market value of the ranch and relied on an expert witness who testified that, in her opinion, the ranch had suffered a loss of market value due to stigma resulting from fear, risk, and negative public perceptions. A jury found that Defendant was negligent and that negligence caused the property to lose $349,312 of its market value. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that even if Texas law permits recovery of stigma damages, Plaintiff’s evidence was legally insufficient to prove them. View "Houston Unlimited, Inc. Metal Processing v. Mel Acres Ranch" on Justia Law

Bill Head, doing business as Bill Head Enterprises (Head), hired Petroleum Solutions, Inc. to manufacture and install an underground fuel system at the truck stop Head owned and operated. After a major diesel-fuel leak occurred, Respondents sued Petroleum Solutions for its damages. The trial rendered judgment in favor of Head and in favor of third-party defendant Titeflex, Inc., the alleged manufacturer of a component part incorporated into the fuel system, on Titeflex’s counterclaim against Petroleum Solutions for statutory indemnity. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the judgment as to Head, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the sanctions of charging the jury with a spoliation instruction and striking Petroleum Solutions’ statute-of-limitations defense, and the trial court’s abuse of discretion was harmful; and (2) affirmed the judgment as to Titeflex’s indemnity claim, holding that Titeflex was entitled to statutory indemnity from Petroleum Solutions. Remanded for further proceedings between Respondents and Petroleum Solutions. View "Petroleum Solutions, Inc. v. Head" on Justia Law