Dawkins v. Hysaw, 450 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) rev'd, Hysaw v. Dawkins, 483 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2016).
Testatrix devised surface rights to tracts of land
of different acreage to each of her three children.
The children also received the mineral rights but subjected them to a
royalty interests. After all the children died, the
grandchildren fought over one of the children’s royalty interest
described as “an undivided one-third (1/3) of an undivided one-eighth
(1/8) of all oil, gas or other minerals in or under or that may be
produced from any [of the tracts].” One group of
descendants argued that the will granted a fractional royalty to each
child (1/24) and another group argued that the will required the
children to share all royalties equally. The trial
court held that the royalties were to be shared equally.
The appellate court reversed holding that the will
was unambiguous in giving this child the surface and mineral estate
subject to a fixed fraction royalty to each of the other two children.
The court engaged in an extensive discussion of the difference
between fractional royalties (constant or fixed fraction of production)
and fraction of royalty interests (floating fraction of whatever royalty
interest is reserved in the lease). The court
determined that different children received different types of interests
thus rejecting the argument that Testatrix actually intended for all
children to share all royalties equally. The court
explained that even if she may have intended the children to share
equally, the court is bound by the unambiguous words of her devises.
Moral: Wills granting interests in oil and
gas properties need to be carefully drafted to assure that the interests
being conveyed comport with the testator’s intent.
Prudent practice is to consult with an oil and gas expert when phrasing
the terms of the grant.