## Facts

- Edward Meirink executed an oil and gas lease on a 21-acre Illinois tract to E. A. Obering in 1953; Obering later conveyed a one-half interest to his wife.
- The lease included a warranty covenant by which the lessor warranted and agreed to defend title to the described lands.
- Meirink believed he owned the entire tract when he leased it, but later discovered he owned only an undivided one-quarter interest; his brother Arthur, his sister Laura, and a minor nephew each owned one-quarter.
- In 1956, after learning of the co-tenancies, Meirink sought to clear title for drilling and obtained a quitclaim deed from Arthur conveying Arthur’s one-quarter interest to Meirink.
- Meirink promptly quitclaimed an undivided one-quarter interest back to Arthur and Arthur’s wife Dorothy as joint tenants; Arthur testified the conveyance to Meirink was only to facilitate drilling and that Arthur was to retain his share.
- In November 1956, Arthur and Dorothy leased their interest to Robert H. Robben.
- Robben filed a declaratory judgment action (removed to federal court on diversity) seeking a determination that his lease, not the Obering lease, controlled as to Arthur and Dorothy’s one-quarter interest.

## Issues

1. Whether the doctrine of after-acquired title (estoppel by deed) caused Arthur’s one-quarter interest—temporarily held by Meirink via quitclaim—to inure to the benefit of the 1953 Obering lease because of its warranty covenant.
2. Whether, under Illinois law and the transaction circumstances, Meirink’s brief receipt and reconveyance of Arthur’s interest constituted a later “acquisition” that expanded the Obering leasehold beyond Meirink’s original one-quarter ownership.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment for Robben.
- The court held the doctrine of after-acquired title did not operate to attach Arthur and Dorothy’s one-quarter interest to the Obering lease.
- The lease from Arthur and Dorothy to Robben was valid and superior as to their undivided one-quarter interest.

## Legal Principles

- A lessor can convey only the interest the lessor owns at the time of the lease; any larger coverage depends on a valid operation of after-acquired title principles.
- Under Illinois law, after-acquired title is not applied automatically; courts consider the substance of the transactions and whether the grantor actually acquired the additional interest in a manner that should pass to the prior grantee under warranty/estoppel concepts.
- A brief, accommodation transfer of a co-tenant’s interest to the original lessor, followed by prompt reconveyance consistent with the parties’ understanding, may be treated as insufficient to cause the co-tenant’s interest to inure to the earlier lease by after-acquired title.
- A warranty covenant in a lease does not necessarily capture a co-tenant’s interest that the lessor held only momentarily and then deliberately reconveyed under the parties’ arrangement.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Meirink’s temporary receipt of Arthur’s interest for a limited purpose, followed by reconveyance, did not trigger after-acquired title to enlarge the earlier Obering lease; therefore, Arthur and Dorothy’s later lease to Robben controlled their one-quarter interest.


Robben v. Obering, 279 F.2d 381 (7th Cir. 1960)