## Facts

- A grantor conveyed land by warranty deed to a grantee, even though the land was already burdened by previously outstanding mineral and nonparticipating royalty interests held by third parties.
- The deed expressly reserved to the grantor “free of all liens a full one‑eighth (1/8) non‑participating royalty interest in the Property subject to any previously conveyed or reserved mineral interest.”
- The deed also stated the conveyance was “made and accepted subject to all restrictions, reservations, covenants, conditions, rights‑of‑way and easements now outstanding.”
- Successors to the grantor claimed entitlement to a full 1/8 nonparticipating royalty interest (NPRI) in addition to the prior outstanding burdens, with the grantee’s successors bearing those burdens.
- Successors to the grantee (leasehold interest owners) argued the grantor’s reserved 1/8 NPRI had to be reduced by the previously outstanding royalty burdens.
- The parties stipulated to all material facts except attorneys’ fees; no live testimony was taken, and the only intent evidence offered was an affidavit from the grantee’s attorney stating his understanding that the deed reserved a “full one‑eighth royalty” to the grantor.
- The trial court declared the grantor’s successors owned a full 1/8 NPRI in addition to outstanding interests and awarded past royalties, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and conditional appellate fees.

## Issues

1. Whether the deed reserved a full 1/8 NPRI to the grantor’s successors in addition to previously outstanding mineral and royalty interests, or whether the reservation was reduced by those outstanding interests.
2. Whether the deed was ambiguous, permitting consideration of extrinsic evidence to determine intent.
3. Whether the trial court erred by issuing findings on a stipulated record and by relying on estoppel, reformation, and prejudgment interest theories in its judgment.

## Decision

- The court of appeals held the deed reserved to the grantor (and successors) a full 1/8 NPRI, with the burden of previously outstanding interests allocated to the grantee’s side of title.
- The court treated the deed as unambiguous and resolved construction from the instrument’s language rather than from extrinsic evidence.
- The court rejected claims of reversible error tied to findings on stipulated facts and treated several challenged “findings” as legal conclusions or consistent with the stipulation.
- Because the deed’s construction controlled, estoppel and reformation theories were not necessary to sustain the core ownership determination.
- The court modified the judgment in part (including as to prejudgment interest) and otherwise affirmed the damages and fee awards as modified.

## Legal Principles

- Deeds are construed as a whole to harmonize provisions and give effect to intent as expressed within the instrument’s four corners.
- A deed is not ambiguous merely because parties dispute its meaning; ambiguity exists only when language remains reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning after applying standard rules of construction.
- A specific reservation of a stated fractional NPRI (e.g., “a full one‑eighth”) will be given effect where the instrument can be read to preserve that fraction.
- General “subject to” clauses typically recognize existing burdens on the property and do not, without clear language, reduce an expressly stated reserved fractional royalty.
- Extrinsic evidence is generally unnecessary and improper to construe an unambiguous deed.

## Conclusion

The court construed the deed to preserve the grantor’s successors’ full 1/8 nonparticipating royalty interest despite prior outstanding burdens, placing those burdens on the grantee’s successors; it modified the judgment in part (including prejudgment interest) and otherwise affirmed.


Gore Oil Co. v. Roosth, 158 S.W.3d 596 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005)