by bobaloo » Sat 23 Jul 2005, 13:48:15
Here's the actual facts of this case if anyone's still interested. Used my google mojo and found a legal article written by a good oil and gas attorney laying out the facts. If the legalese makes your head hurt I've written a summary at the end.
***********************************************************
"ADVERSE POSSESSION AGAINST COTENANTS
Talk about heirs coming out of the woodpile! Unocal, Exxon, and others were recently sued by the heirs of an original grantee of the patent of land which encompassed all of a lucrative oil field. The case, Thedford v. Union Oil Company of California, 3 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1999), is a good review of Texas law on adverse possession against cotenants.
In 1838, John Walling received one league andone labor of land. Walling died testate, devising 320 acres to each of nine children from his first marriage, and the remaining 2,862 acres (the Walling Survey) to his second wife and their two children, Richard and William. When the second wife died, the entire 2,862 acres went to Richard and William. William died intestate, having never married nor had children. Richard then conveyed the entire 2,862 acres to R.W. Berry, by aduly recorded deed. Later, the land was sold in parcels to various parties. In 1927, portions of the land were leased for oil and gas,leading to the discovery of the oil field.
The plaintiffs were over 100 individuals who claimed to be heirs of the children from John Walling's first marriage. Since, under the laws of intestacy, each of the half-siblngs inherited fractional interests from William, but only the full sibling, Richard, conveyed to Berry, the plaintiffs claimed ownership of substantial undivided, unleased interests in the WallingSurvey. They argued that the time period for adverse possession had never commenced running against them, since, under Texas case law, a cotenant may not adversely possess against another cotenant unless it clearly appears he has repudiated the title of his cotenant and is holding adversely to it. Notice of such repudiation must be clear,
unequivocal, and unmistakable. The heirs argued that the deed was insufficient to repudiate their ancestors' title.
Significantly, the deed to Berry purported to convey the entire property, not just William's interest. The property was then occupied by strangers to the Wallingfamily. The court, following existing Texas case law, noted that "(w)hen a party obtains title to property from one cotenant through an instrument purporting to convey the entire title..., such conveyance constitutes ouster ... of the nonparticipating cotenant, especially when the grantee is a stranger tothe cotenants." Quoting theTexas Supreme Court, the court noted the "vast difference between the noticeof adverse claim conveyed by the presence of a stranger in possession and thatof a cotenant in possession." The court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of Unocal and the other defendants based on adverse possession.
In Louisiana, this case would have the same end result. Possession by one co-owner in Louisiana is generally considered as being exercised on behalf of all co-owners. Civil Code Art. 3478, however, provides that a co-owner "may commence to prescribe when he demonstrates by overt and unambiguous acts sufficient to give notice to his co-owner that he intends to possess the property for himself. The acquisition and recordation of a title [by] a person other than a co-owner thus may mark the commencement of prescription.� A recorded deed is only one example of an overt act sufficient to give notice. Franks Petroleum, Inc. v. Babineaux, 446 So.2d 862 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1984).
Mr. Byrd, a former landman, is licensed inTexas and Louisiana,and, in Texas, is Board Certified inOil,
Gas & Mineral Law. He is with the Houston office of Cotton, Bledsoe, Tighe & Dawson."
******************************** END QUOTE
To simplify, Mr. Walling left land to his first wife, and land to his second wife. When the second wife died, all her land went to her two sons, Richard and William. William died, without a will or heirs, and Richard took over all his land. Later, Richard sold all the land to a Mr. Berry, who subsequently ended up breaking up the land into smaller parcels and selling it off to various buyers.
Now here's the basis for the "current" lawsuit. The legal argument is that the heirs of Walling's FIRST wife were by Texas law entitled to a small portion of William's land, because he died without a will and without heirs. So, many years later, they file a lawsuit against people god knows how far down the chain of subsequent purchasers and demand their rights to "their" land. The court threw the case out via summary judgment, which means they never even got to trial, the court read the submitted brief and in effect said "even if you prove all your claims at trial you're still going to lose, there's no sense wasting time at trial." This is extremely rare, and tells a great deal about the value of their argument.
Think about it, someonne shows up and files a lawsuit against you saying that 100 years ago their great grandfather was entitled to an interest in your property and now they want it back. How likely do you think it is the law or a court will support that action?
Note that the citation to the case appears in the article, Thedford v. Union Oil Company of California, 3 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1999), go to any law library at a county courthouse and they can find that for you and read it for yourself. For some reason I pissed away most of an hour on a beautiful Saturday morning doing this to keep someone from getting ripped off, because I HATE con artists, so please do the reasearch before throwing your money away.
If anyone doubts the authenticity here's the google cache link "http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:T3KpnGCaRUcJ:www.cbtd.com/news/june.pdf+Thedford+v+Unocal&hl=en&client=safari"
I had no idea that people on this string actually believe this is a fabricated lawsuit...is that really the case? Or did I read that reply wrong? There are countless documents from the courts in Texas for the initial filings of this case and the appeals.
I respect your opinion, however, at least we ALL now believe there really is a legal action being sought and this is not a ficticious act as some would try to convince you.
