Charles Alford and Mary Lou Alford v. Robert Thomas McKeithen, EOG Resources, Inc. and Central Texas Land Services

ACCEPTED 12-14-00262 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 4/24/2015 2:16:04 PM CATHY LUSK CLERK NO. 12-14-00262-CV ______________________________ FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS IN THE TYLER, TEXAS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS 4/24/2015 2:16:04 PM AT TYLER, TEXAS CATHY S. LUSK Clerk ______________________________ CHARLES ALFORD and MARY LOU ALFORD, Appellants VS. ROBERT THOMAS McKEITHEN, EOG RESOURCES, INC. and CENTRAL TEXAS LAND SERVICES, Appellees ______________________________ Appealed from the District Court of San Augustine County, Texas ______________________________ APPELLANTS’ BRIEF ______________________________ TOM RORIE State Bar No. 17238000 210 North Street Nacogdoches, TX 75961 (936) 559-1188 FAX (936) 559-0099 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED  IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL In accordance with Rule 38.1(a) of the TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE , Appellants Charles Alford and Mary Lou Alford provide the following list of all parties, and the names and addresses of all counsel: Appellants: Charles Alford Mary Lou Alford Counsel: Tom Rorie Attorney at Law 210 North Street Nacogdoches, TX 75961 (936) 559-1188 FAX (936) 559-0099 Appellee: Robert Thomas McKeithen Counsel: Noel D. Cooper Law Offices of Noel D. Cooper 117 North Street, Suite 2 Nacogdoches, TX 75961 (936) 564-9000 FAX (936) 715-6022 Bill McWhorter Bill McWhorter & Associates 119 North Street, Suite A Nacogdoches, TX 75961-5200 (936) 564-2676 FAX (936) 564-6455 Appellees: EOG Resources, Inc. Central Texas Land Services Counsel: Jason R. Mills Graham K. Simms Jeff K. Heck Freeman Mills PC 110 N. College, Suite 1400 Tyler, TX 75702 (903) 592-7755 FAX (903) 592-7787 ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Identity of Parties and Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Index of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Statement of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Statement of Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Summary of the Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Point of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law in Holding That an Exhibit Attached to a Warranty Deed With Vendor’s Lien was Wholly Incor- porated by Reference into the Deed Arguments and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Argument and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Rules of Contract Construction Apply to Deeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Basic Rules of Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Deed is Construed Against Grantors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Rules Adopted by the Courts on Incorporation of Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Is the Reservation Part of the Property Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 What Happens to the Matter That is Not Incorporated? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 What Was the Intent of the Parties? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Certificate of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 iii Certificate of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 iv  INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Alford v. Kuhlman Electric Corporation 716 F.3d 909 (CA5 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Arnold v. Sentry Savings Association 633 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Bob Montgomery Chevrolet v. Dent Zone Companies 409 S.W.3d 181 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2013, no writ hist.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,8 Coker v. Coker 650 S.W. 2d 391 (Tex. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,4 Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation v. An Ning Juang MV 383 F.2d 349 (CA5 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Guerini Stone Co. v. P.J. Carlin Construction Company 240 U.S. 264, 36 S.Ct. 306, 60 L.Ed. 636 (1916) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,6 Heritage Res., Inc. v. Nationsbank 939 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Hill & Combs v. First National Bank of San Angelo 139 F.2d 740 (CA5 1944) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Jones v. Sun Oil Co. 110 S.W.2d 80 (Tex.Civ.App.–Texarkana 1937, writ ref.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Lavaca Bay Autoworld, LLC v. Marshall Pontiac Buick Oldsmobile 103 S.W.3d 650 (Tex.App.–Corpus Christi 2003, no neg. writ hist.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Luckel v. White 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Maupin v. Chaney 163 S.W.2d 380 (Tex. 1942) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Ogden v. Dickinson State Bank 662 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 v Owen v. Hendricks 433 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. 1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,5,6 Pritchett v. Gold’s Gym Franchising, LLC 2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 1281 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2014, no writ hist.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Ralston Purina Co. v. Barge Juneau and Gulf Carribbean Marine Lines 619 F.2d 374 (CA5 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Ray v. Elder 2007 Tex.App. LEXIS 4170 (Tex.App.–Tyler 2007, no writ hist.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Reeves v. Towery 621 S.W.2d 209 (Tex.App.–Corpus Christi 1981, no writ hist.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Rice v. Cook 367 S.W.2d 386 (Tex.Civ.App.–Austin 1963, no writ hist.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Starcrest Trust v. Berry 926 S.W.2d 343 (Tex.App.–Austin 1996, no writ hist.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Sullivan v. City of Galveston 17 S.W.2d 478 (Tex.App. 1928, no writ hist.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Tribble & Stephens Co. v. RGM Constructors, L.P. 154 S.W.3d 639 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th] 2004, pet.rev.den’d.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Books and Treatises Page Williston on Contracts § 30-25 (4th Ed.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Codes, Rules and Statutes Page TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE , Rule 9.4(i)(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE , Rule 38.1(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii vi  STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants brought suit against the Appellees seeking a judgment that they owned all the interest in minerals in three tracts of land in San Augustine County that were owned by their grantors as of the date they acquired those tracts. Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied by the trial court, raising the same issue as raised in this appeal. They also filed a motion immediately before trial began for the trial court to construe the deed as a matter of law. The court ruled that an exhibit to the deed was incorporated for all purposes. Trial before a jury was held on several issues, on issues of mutual mistake, limitations, trespass to try title, etc. The jury failed to find mutual mistake. Based on the jury verdict the court rendered judgment for the Appellees. Appellants filed a motion for new trial, which was denied. This appeal was then perfected. vii  STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellants were acquainted with a Jack and Annie Jessup in San Augustine County who owned three tracts of land. Appellants had leased the land and known the Jessups for many years. In 2003 Annie Jessup told Mary Lou Alford she and her husband wanted to sell their land to them. They reached an agreement as to price and that the Jessups would owner-finance the sale. Annie Jessup went to a San Augustine Title Company to have documents prepared. A Warranty Deed With Vendor’s Lien, Deed of Trust, and promissory note were executed. The documents needed to close the transaction were executed on April 25, 2003. The deed is the document in question in this suit (App. 1). It contained a section entitled “Reservations from Conveyance and Warranty” in which was included the following language “For Grantor, a reservation for the full possession, benefit, and use of Tract Two for the remainder of the life of Grantor, as a life estate.” There was a space provided immediately below that section in which the initials of all the parties were entered. Attached to the deed was an exhibit, marked Exhibit A. The deed referred to this exhibit, by saying in the description of Tract One the following: “and being more particularly described by metes and bounds on Exhibit “A” attached hereto.” Exhibit A contained photocopied descriptions of the tracts copied from older deeds. In particular, it contained a description of “Tract One” which began with a property description by metes and bounds but then, without any break or interruption, began stating a reservation of minerals. The attorney who prepared the deed did not intend to include any mineral reservation (RR 59). The legal assistant who prepared the deed testified that she copied the description for an 1950 viii deed and did not notice that it contained a mineral reservation (RR 27-32; App. 2). Initially it was believed that Appellants owned the minerals under the tract. They were approached to lease, and did lease, the minerals. A few years later they were notified that they did not own the minerals after all, and once they learned they would not be paid for the minerals being produced from their tracts they brought suit in District Court in San Augustine County against the lessee and producer, EOG Resources, Inc. and the party who transferred the lease to EOG, Central Texas Land Services, as well as against Robert Thomas McKeithen, who was an heir of the Jessups and acted in a representative capacity for them. Both of the Jessups were deceased prior to trial. ix  SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The deed conveying real property to Appellants did not reserve any minerals by the Grantors even though there was a mineral reservation included on an attached exhibit, because the parties did not intend to incorporate that exhibit for all purposes. The exhibit was attached solely for the purpose of providing a metes and bounds description of the land being conveyed. The primary goal of the court is ascertain the intent of the parties. When the parties had the opportunity to reserve minerals in the deed itself and chose not to do so, and when the incorporation of the exhibit was for a limited purpose, the effect of the exhibit is limited to its stated purpose only. The court should strike from the deed in question and the exhibit any reference to a reservation of minerals, as the parties’ intent was not to incorporate such a reservation. The court should render judgment that Appellants are the owners of all minerals which were owned by the grantors at the time of the execution of the deed. x  POINT OF ERROR POINT OF ERROR NO. 1: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT AN EXHIBIT ATTACHED TO A WARRANTY DEED WITH VENDOR’S LIEN WAS WHOLLY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE DEED. 1  ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES ARGUMENT Point of Error No. 1: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT AN EXHIBIT ATTACHED TO A WARRANTY DEED WITH VENDOR’S LIEN WAS WHOLLY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE DEED. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES This case tests the limits of incorporation of a document into another document. The instrument in question is a Warranty Deed With Vendor’s Lien executed by Jack P. Jessup and wife, Annie Elizabeth Jessup, to Appellants dated April 25, 2003 (App. 1). The deed identified three tracts of land in San Augustine County, Texas. The deed itself made no mention of any reservation of minerals; in fact the parties all initialed a section of the deed regarding reservations from the conveyance and it does not mention minerals. The issue is the effect of an attached Exhibit A. That page contains a metes and bounds description for “Tract One,” but also includes in that description a reservation of minerals, which the evidence showed was copied, in error from an old deed (App. 2). That the inclusion of the reservation of minerals was a mistake is clear. The attorney who prepared the deed stated there was no intent to include the mineral reservation. (RR Vol. 4, p. 59). The legal assistant who copied the attachment and attached to the deed testified that she did so in error. (RR Vol. 4, pp. 27-32). She copied the property description from a prior deed to the property executed in 1950 and failed to see the reference to a mineral reservation in the description. Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment contending that as a matter of law the reservation of minerals was not incorporated into or part of the deed (App. 3 and 4). They renewed that argument at the time of trial by filing a motion to construe the deed (App. 7). The trial judge 2 ruled that Exhibit A was entirely incorporated into the deed (App. 8). After that ruling the case was tried to a jury on the theory of mutual mistake, and Appellants lost (App. 9 and 10). Appellants filed a motion for new trial raising again the issue of construction of the deed (App. 11). The motion for new trial was denied (App. 12). The question is as follows: Does a reference in a deed to an attachment which incorporates it for a specific purpose also incorporate it for any or all other purposes? RULES OF CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION APPLY TO DEEDS A deed is a form of contract, and construed in the same manner. The courts have been consistent in holding that the rules of construction of contracts are the same as those that apply to deeds or other instruments of conveyance. Arnold v. Sentry Savings Association, 633 S.W.2d 811, 815 (Tex. 1982); Starcrest Trust v. Berry, 926 S.W.2d 343, 351-352 (Tex.App.–Austin 1996, no writ hist.). BASIC RULES OF CONSTRUCTION The basic rules of contract construction are well established. First, the primary goal is to determine the actual or true intent of the parties as they have stated it in the instrument. Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W. 2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983). In order to give effect to all the language or provisions included in the document they executed the court should examine and consider the entire document and all its provisions. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 662 (Tex. 2005). Contract provisions are to be given their ordinary and accepted meanings unless the document indicates the parties intended to use them is some technical or specific sense. Heritage Res., Inc. v. Nationsbank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex. 1996). Even if parts of the instrument appear to be 3 contradictory or inconsistent, the court must attempt to harmonize those provisions to give effect to all of them. Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1991). The court should avoid a construction that if possible makes any provision meaningless. Coker v. Coker. With respect to a description of real property, it has been said that “[the sole purpose of the description of property, as contained in a deed of conveyance, is to identify the subject matter of the grant.” Maupin v. Chaney, 163 S.W.2d 380 (Tex. 1942); Rice v. Cook, 367 S.W.2d 386 (Tex.Civ.App.–Austin 1963, no writ hist.). THE DEED IS CONSTRUED AGAINST GRANTORS If there is a reservation in a deed in favor of a grantor it must be most strongly construed against the grantor and in favor of the grantee. Reeves v. Towery, 621 S.W.2d 209, 212 (Tex.App.–Corpus Christi 1981, no writ hist.). The same rule applies if the language used in the deed was doubtful in intent. Jones v. Sun Oil Co., 110 S.W.2d 80 (Tex.Civ.App.–Texarkana 1937, writ ref.). If the trial court was not certain of the intent of the grantor in reserving minerals, then Appellants should have received the benefit of any doubt. RULES ADOPTED BY THE COURTS ON INCORPORATION OF DOCUMENTS Courts have explained the rule of incorporation of documents in ways that appear to create a conflict. One line of cases is that represented by Owen v. Hendricks,433 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. 1968); Ray v. Elder, 2007 Tex.App. LEXIS 4170 (Tex.App.–Tyler 2007, no writ hist.); Pritchett v. Gold’s Gym Franchising, LLC, 2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 1281 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2014, no writ hist.). Those cases 4 recite the language of Owen v. Hendricks: It is uniformly held that an unsigned paper may be incorporated by reference in the paper signed by the person to be charged. The language used is not important provided the document signed by the defendant plainly refers to another writing. This line of cases seems to say that stated purpose for an attachment is not material: if the attachment or extraneous document is referred to at all, it comes in. A second lines of cases holds that other documents, whether attached or incorporated by reference, are only considered for the purpose given by the parties themselves. In Guerini Stone Co. v. P.J. Carlin Construction Company, 240 U.S. 264, 36 S.Ct. 306, 60 L.Ed. 636 (1916), the United States Supreme Court held that “[A] reference by the contracting parties to an extraneous writing for a particular purpose makes it a part of their agreement only for the purpose specified.” Several decades later the United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit adopted Guerini in a construction case. Hill & Combs v. First National Bank of San Angelo, 139 F.2d 740 (CA5 1944). The court said: While a reference in a contract to plans and specifications imports them into and makes them a part of the contract, it is quite well settled that such a reference is not effective beyond the agreement of the contract and that if the contract contains qualifying words, they will be given effect, and the reference limited accordingly. Thus the Fifth Circuit held that the rule of Owen v. Hendricks is limited: a mere reference is not enough to incorporate the entire extraneous document or attachment, but the court must give the incorporated matter the effect the parties intended. If the words qualify the intent of the incorporation, the court must limit its effect to what the parties agreed. That court has consistently followed that rule: See Ralston Purina Co. v. Barge Juneau and Gulf Carribbean Marine Lines, 619 5 F.2d 374, 375-376 (CA5 1980), and Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation v. An Ning Juang MV, 383 F.2d 349 (CA5 2004). More recently, in Alford v. Kuhlman Electric Corporation, 716 F.3d 909, 914 (CA5 2013), the Fifth Circuit said “it is important to note that when incorporated matter is referred to for a specific purpose only, it becomes a part of the contract for that purpose only, and should be treated as irrelevant for all other purposes,” citing Williston on Contracts § 30-25 (4th Ed.). Thus the court is now saying that the extraneous matter does not come in automatically, but only the part the parties intended to incorporate for the stated purpose: the remainder is disregarded. Texas courts have long recognized the Guerini rule. In Sullivan v. City of Galveston, 17 S.W.2d 478, 490 (Tex.App. 1928, no writ hist.), the court held that an attached document which provided the interest rate on some bonds was only incorporated for the purpose of supplying the interest rate and no other reason. Therefore, the court said that “the paper had no effect upon the obligation of the parties expressed in the bond itself, other than to supply the evidence of the rate of interest.” In Tribble & Stephens Co. v. RGM Constructors, L.P., 154 S.W.3d 639 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th] 2004, pet.rev.den’d.), the court adopted the Guerini rule, citing a number of cases that have followed it. More recently another Texas Court of Appeals has touched on the seeming conflict between the language of Owen v. Hendricks and Guerini. In Bob Montgomery Chevrolet v. Dent Zone Companies, 409 S.W.3d 181 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2013, no writ hist.), the Dallas court first cited Owen v. Hendricks for the proposition that documents can be incorporated into an agreement of the parties, even if they are unsigned, as long as the signed document “plainly refers” to the incorporated 6 document. But then the court added: No Texas case has expressly held that the complete incorporation by reference of another document requires the original document show the parties intended for the referenced document to become part of the contract. However the requirement for such a showing is supported by the general principle of contract law that reference to a document for a specific purpose incorporates that document only for the specified purpose. IS THE RESERVATION PART OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION? Another issue is whether or not the reservation of minerals is in effect a part of the property description. A reservation of minerals has the effect of reducing what is conveyed under the deed. So in theory it does affect the description of the land if it limits or reduces the quantity of land conveyed. Therefore, “the following tract of XX acres with the minerals reserved” would define what is being conveyed. In the case before the bar the deed is complete in itself: it identifies the parties, conveys the land, and provides an sufficient description of the land. What then is the purpose of the attachment? It is to provide a metes and bounds description as a supplement to the shorter, more general description of the land. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MATTER THAT IS NOT INCORPORATED? In this case the parties stated that they were attaching Exhibit A for the sole purpose of providing a metes and bounds description. So what happens to the old mineral reservation that the legal assistant copied from the older deed and included because she failed to read to the end of the page? 7  In Bob Montgomery Chevrolet, Inc. v. Dent Zone Companies the court held that since it had found that a document regarding information on the internet was not incorporated into the agreement between the parties, that a clause in question, a forum selection clause, was not part of their contract. Therefore, it ruled that the forum selection clause was not binding and had no effect. In Lavaca Bay Autoworld, LLC v. Marshall Pontiac Buick Oldsmobile, 103 S.W.3d 650 (Tex.App.–Corpus Christi 2003, no neg. writ hist.), the court found that since two provisions of the contract conflicted, and the court can resolve that conflict by striking down one of the provisions, that it had authority to strike down a writing in the contract so that no conflict existed. In Ogden v. Dickinson State Bank, 662 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. 1983), the court held that when two provisions in a contract appear to be in conflict they should be harmonized if possible. In this case that is not possible, some provision has to go to avoid the conflict. That provision is the mineral reservation, the provision the parties did not intend to bind them. In this case the court cannot reconcile both the evidence of intent of the parties to reserve only a life estate in one of the tracts, but reserve no minerals, with the entire language on Exhibit A. But the court can reconcile the deed with only the metes and bounds description. Therefore the court should order the mineral reservation stricken from Attachment A to the deed. WHAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES? The primary goal of construction of any document is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the parties. What evidences their intent? ! the parties indicated by their action that they considered any reservation from the conveyance important by setting aside a section of the deed for that subject with its 8  own title ! the parties indicated by their action that they considered any reservation from the conveyance important by each initialing the section that covered that subject ! the deed was complete in itself, i.e. there was no necessity to refer to any attachment to complete the terms and provisions of their agreement ! the parties initialed the section of the deed that referenced reservations from the conveyance, but they did not initial or sign the reservation of minerals on the attachment ! the person who prepared the deed testified that the attached mineral reservation was not attached intentionally but in error ! the parties limited the purpose of the attachment to the deed to only providing a metes and bounds description ! the parties gave no indication in the deed itself that they intended to incorporate any provision of the attachment as a provision of the deed itself. For these reasons the only logical conclusion regarding the intent of the parties is that they intended that the grantors reserve one thing only, a life estate as to one tract, and that Appellants receive all their other interest in the property. CONCLUSION The trial court erred in construing the deed to Appellants by holding that the mineral reservation found in the metes and bounds property description was incorporated for all purposes. This case should never had gone to a jury, but rather should have been decided as a matter of law, 9 of contract interpretation. The court should reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment that the mineral reservation included on Exhibit A to the deed in question is of no effect and is struck, and that all minerals of the grantors in that deed passed to Appellants. The court should remand to the trial court the issue of Appellants’ damages for the removal by any other parties of the minerals from the tracts conveyed to them, as well as damages to the surface of those tracts. Appellants request that all costs be taxed against the defendants and that they have such other relief as they may be entitled to receive. Respectfully submitted, Tom Rorie Tom Rorie State Bar No. 17238000 210 North Street Nacogdoches, TX 75961 (936) 559-1188 FAX (936) 559-0099 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.4(i)(3), I hereby certify that this brief contains 2,459 words (excluding any caption, identity of parties and counsel, statement regarding oral argument, table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the case, statement of issues presented, statement of jurisdiction, statement of procedural history, signature, proof of service, certification, certificate of compliance, and appendix). This is a computer-generated document 10 created in WordPerfect, using 12-point typeface for all text. In making this certificate of compliance, I am relying on the word count provided by the software used to prepare the document. Tom Rorie Tom Rorie CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been served on counsel for Appellees this 24th day of April, 2015, by e-file service. Tom Rorie Tom Rorie 11  NO. |]- r4-00]61-cv IN THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS AT TYLER" TEXAS CHARLES ALFORD and MARY LOU ALFORD. Appellants VS. ROBERT THOMAS McKEITHEN. EOG RESOURCES. INC. and CENTRAI- TEXAS LAND SERVICES. Appellees Appealed fioni the District Courl of San Augustine County, Texas APPENDIX TO APPELLANTS' BRIEF I'OM RORIE State Bar No. 17238000 21 0North Street Nacogdoches, TX 75961 (e36) sse-1 I 88 FAX (e36) 559-00ee ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANI'S ORAL ARGTIMENT REQUESTED  APPENDIX No. Document 1 Warranty Deed with Vendor's Lien from .f essup to Alford dated April 25.2003 2 Warranty Deed fiom Fountain, Burns. and Jessup to Jack Jessup dated May 24.1950 3 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 4 Order Denying the Altbrds' Motion fbr Summary.ludgment 5 Plaintifl's' Third Amended Original Petition 6 Plaintiffs' First Supplemental Petition 7 Motion fbr Court to Construe Document Prior to Evidence and Submission of Issues to Jurv in Trial 8 Order on Construction by Court of Warranty Deed fiom Jack P. Jessup and Annie Elizabeth Jessup to Charles Alford and Mary Lou Alfbrd dated April 25"2003 9 Jury Verdict l0 Judgment 11 Motion fbr New Trial 12 Order Denyins Plaintifls" Motion fbr New Trial  .''l .t r 't -.-, ;$!g#ril,4';,Lrrios :,il1.,j,11".[i { "u';Ft' .wa*i"r4i{t-trel!! a,, rlt_|._rlaJ,ld.d,y'*_.oiir,ii,ur _wqg_yr.,ql}ic{i,Ell1,.Lr )inte; april 15, 2003 Grauton iAeI( p, JESS;LrP, oto.,,,tu,,u .r6n10y r, rz, r'g11 6rairteer cirARLEI,. /irrer re,, ilfi ;,ff l;11' """u' r, ijr>'" t64' rir'rr;rLrgrrriri.ne, sui rrul Ar,IroRrr) nr,, wl}-li, .'l: $rsh(0 c'l'!i' 'l'e*s 759?2 '^}r{I) ",,..,, M.Ai(y L0L,- ai,F.[)J{D Griy-1tr*,0 Mnlr{ng A,rrir'cor (iJ:) ttrelttdln'rj c.utit'l): Itorr1ll 1' 1i6x e0nulderstioDi '529, srir Arilu'til,;, irr;\!rg:n1'' corur,/ .i.{rx,ls.rsg?,r lltJlJf;?rii,[i';.i",li,i:: 1, r,o: L,Lts i"( )0 r:r v'itpl c"rir.dr-nriu.J,u.;r ',,'ui'tr,', ;., l,,,t"l ;];i,,,;J,,;l't R.rto.r)8i11. -.. !:l ol:*of f rnrr ,i, .u,,,,, ,t*;tf:l,lli-i, ;;;il:t ;X t;:l,,li::ii-l;,il,Ji];,ii,j,l,iliiil,i,i,ill,i;,f i,::ll,ii l,X,,.,i,T::;?l,iu,,,f il,H,,n**." ,,, , '#Tf;r,:llijf'r,+r, r,i ir,rr,,, rLi,c,,1" : :3,i:"'ft'.'.Tl;r:l]:,, l't','"r'-- (\,,,u rc.LL. . ,, "i, ,'.;:'.''l;,,,:"x,'lil."l,1r,lji:"1;,tiliJ; l"f*tuu'.r",il.,i ;;,"l,iir,t;,j.;,;:X;:!l;li JJ;#;":]:f#,;,,:.'l,ir,t;,',: u,, "lili,. i.,, n,.,.,,.,";,, .,,.,: ,,i,i ;;;,;i,..;li:;;: ,,,,;:;r,;;;,,,,1r, Trr.Af)? ?r,?L!r ,;'i;,,*,:,,,r- *il*lfi*,',mf'$ j,i,, i i, i;i'i[+:*irilj,i:$*,ll I iH*-itr,T, :frq#nTf,ljillt:fiiti.l;ilrffirr1r;iu;:ffi,lr,,,ii;,*il,il,irT ir"i,;:illtr ,:illT; ;:Jli: :;;:;:i'"'-,,r 'I,.',',ij ,; ,6 j, , " ,,,, ,"1,;;!. ,, ,.,, ,^0.o, ,;ntr:r nr r-,c ,.r r;'ffi,*#il'Tt;::lii:lli,,,r,i .;: ; ,.:,': .. ,, ''.,;;,;,r-r,,"*;;, F.ln"At,:,j;i.;',;l;',ji,,il'j*;,,,,,; ln,,,,,, 0 ' -,4diiit$d,$,*1,l i;{ -:;,, i,,;i,,.':i }r*,. ii[' i- :*,,,-#t: yg,n:::::*l;'iv;il*d;;i;ff.Jit),:lJ;:'rjJ,ll,ii$l;jru*;jii:l;:;iijl*i'flf]iti,,ffilij r;elurjr: t)ir; plilLrti, ), !la', :tu;h,rri "l/&,n J,,(; €;;=t':: lr-, /' ;.,2 (=r >., L (t ) PLAINTIFFS' EX}{tBIl'A ti;i;t '"'l-' .,'-1!1d.._l r)Al[i; ,,.!lt:r.o:; ,;i;rc _,,.,;1 )*,,:1, '" :,.,.'',- l'.1'utiu;'' ;rl ,u :::i I !i'l :"' ! ;ifl*H lly";;, ,j,': i*;q*;;;,tli-i;'*il['iiii r,;tr#i:, ' ;'-" , u**i. :.irtF';ffifli;': ii'ii;l:!ii ifffn:-;j$:r,r,Bll-:ii;qi-iffi;i,r'i,,,,idil; :;i;f; ;;jil il:ilil-;;,i"::i;," ;;" l i ffi::l'11.:111,'iiii .'^iin'l.'$'i:i;j{.'i;:iii'|ii', ;",;' :1; ;1 il;,i1'i,;"ii ;'irii ;' iF li+iJ|'lsrli l**l,f ';if:' iii,l:fli,il*;Ulii,: fi - ;il.'l, #1r,;;i,ii'.,,i;,i,, 6f;ffr.;"[ilf u*,"i*,niliJl_tl',$,iil,lrl,ruirui':"i; lL':,1,i;,u,;t:;i,.;l;,:i;"::,;ll:tou;;.1_..i.=.. i.1 | tlis'i e €:,uq!t1 ,nrac, J loi oo .)r, ))it?i)0r ,,. ,_ . .. c'i' "l''vtrl , i'1"''L,,lg(r o: r-nd e,. :rafn cl. i'ri.,'Llrlg(r r't' r.r, 5r'. aI .li ,rr,, I 5r.. 'iiurl'u'iiti;']'i:tu .r^,.. .iiur,r,u,iji;l i,,, 0orinlr' , trefrger pgd 1;eiag 'o'nttr' tot"'o'rrt Roxitsr bei116 :l ep, l thc : rr;' o''o't' Jl"'.'""''" "r:i'l'rr: "'e'rr i'i{ 1;r',r iTef it ol su"' ;"ut;;'r.*, 'i olri ::"'''n f,jharp jeae)rp ru* \.1.J,0.,d i ,1,"11,,:il i;',,.il.'; ,l ::.:j:;il ;ff:,.:::::;,:, ", ;;;,i;J,:,.1: - '' r'2 t(ri'. !!'tj'cir ,li ,,}i,,T.. l ili\d' i)e'1.h. i SEGillN:FG at 2 eitrr'e 1iI i a;ror.r,r..c ,r r!,..,-.. t" 7:i i\o)''e,r; ' !'/'i ri '"'rio*.11 ,,' ."i ,',;,",l ,,l 'r{ c,-,,,. '.res.,i Q,:.. ,.0i 1 ,.;r.'1,,-:i: f .r,rou iir.,;l ii ffil:: ;:;.;; l:,::.".,,i;l;;:;l,i;":i,,,;:';; *, ;:.,I;i; ;;,";; i ''// (\('l'' \/'i 290 l'l''l f('lrb ii llEii'ca st 3:ujr.! 'etlt il.,-''ai:r.41. rr:.'i; ;:rrrr ,rr,, j ii ;;; ",,:,,;;'i,r: "rrraa*, ir corr',iai!ridrJ ? acree ,"::-":lt,;"un""""',.,rr',,,''.0 :;r";;;r';:':r:i:";;:;;^r, ll ll :Xl,1i'.i, i' A  :! xllj.LATri C At Rh1. , 0F i.rixAi., wur\ I Y \); lAN A:J(-.t. .l.rj\; ,. r"i, tr*'iT,i",'rlJ?;i#i:;fj::'viedg*l belore ule by rAcl( p r;rssu,! ANjr, !rri:,., /r I\NLII rJ'u'i!8811'l ' t-.:.t-;,.:-r:..:-.',i\.;..)i)::.::rr-j,..../.:_-r. JIi$ri\Jp, /') I rA:+ '',';,'r!-il . t, .\,n{ ( .( l: 'r:J-,, it,.". pitr:paeffrivtifli,l.n,obol,.rr.:;;:f , \1' n",i:!n,,)/!_,,_#,)t!,),ur,,r,r., ,;\,'r,'ii rt' r('r ,:,i.,, ? "' ., .; . " AFrER,*.",oR_D x?:x;l?i} ;,t,li} :^ll'i] : ?:,.rl i it jr j;r;.., ,riolo.or.rl. li.l_,il,,n o 0,. nun*,, r;crt . I :'r!'l al.t  'l'ltr. ii'li'llfii 0t ',['.11,:(,trlii,I co uN'l' y [tinout,r't.Ll lvLcn r_,r, !.:.e.i J i1.rttrttit.lri.i,i tt. . ..I i.a::y lr',j1)nl;:;.'l : [t::i r't:1.f cr jr'il.:ru:rio itouil,i;aJ.:,n() ::;l; ::: ,,,r .Lf o ll:rci il o l; ;; u 1: ,C) o3g1"rr,i &.nd w:rJ,(j oi ilte Couni;, 6! ll,t 1l iilli'rrijlj I.iro , l,t1Lc,r; -riirlillJ toi aitc.L ii.l colsrder.atrol ihe sliu ol oL l'f (; ':'{ii;i.l,.r I irt) r\!:'t rilrj lji.tr.rr:l.i,i.t,_i ,,1.,.it,1.;.,r,i l.iilij!l}..r! riirl irol' lr)fl (11;ltlii,ii" tlit i DOl,r,tiIiS, il ll [i i)a|iL. all(i seclrLcd t0 itr: 1;aii;,, ir1 Lj.ael lr; , (:r ,! ,.t Lt l') i, 'i rill iair.liji t,.r' ls.olirr*s: 'ilt:i- 1'11 , . t,)t.)\) ,r)i_.r i1;.;. . ij,.t i,ii-.i I i.ii1) t'(lj0.'rl,/,.a i) ' nri'] rlii t '; r i.r,L i11r.,11 1;; ., !jL:,ll (-t r,i l.r I ;:i' I l:l','.l1tll iiji.-.':':,) t1...:,;, rir .;i.r:t1i{j,r,,.),.i ;r,:i,r ,:,,.,{;'l,i]',,;.,.1;i;l*';,; lr:i;,;,,::l,,il'J.;."1;;;',iil.il,l;lt:;;',,' rjiirl;., '1"i:;)i!r;i ir1. l.l',:'lt' r; ij'rr', jr ,j 1).i 1.r i-trrt.L i;,.lrlj !rir i\ Ji.,; i]l il:ltt l)'i;'i;11",'' '"'r' );ri;i, -itl, i'i1]'ll ', r'|rt\,.'.','). :i or ::,, ,,,'';]ll;'ti]: iit'l,i:ii,,.]t,ililtt,,tTgi]t- ;;jj, ';;i,;' ,1,;,,,;'; ,l-1, l',i,,,|f],,,1;;1,,, 1,,:: ll:l "1:,,11::Ji,l',,; xl,i;j, .,., l.!i, ,., ::i;rr 1..:;:i Lllr,./,,.;,ii,,;.r,j.{:i.ri.ril tll:iJill iJ.tl'r r}ir (/:t'l)oi.'n.r-i) s,r\r{:,:rr.irjlr'j(r irL:.r))i,r i.;r'.i.'';;.r,,, i.,, . r" ciriiirr-i;'i I]:ll,i; i).rl;r,i,,i) i.r,i,,l,ri,i"i,oilir;!-,,ii;]: i]lft,;; , i't''r Jjf r' '1jiiirr,1!ri.| :ir;,i,eJ'a'ir i; )l{" r.rilr.r.r,j {,r.,.-L r. .r,;.;" ,:r ii ir.j ::ir ,f,Ln1:i1,, .:jl ll:l ;i::;i;,'";jr,,i"',u"il:l u'i,,,' ,-,,;,,ui.1,i,,,,'.,, ,.,,'., ,;;.;l;;;;,,,1,,::lr'i'ir ni.a(:rri!l il;y i.,,,i;1 ),,,{,yii frll f,{r !tr jti.ul;i ,;r"; ;;,,rlil )-r,;:r.r.r iriii.t,.l (,fi :t.ir ,:t:!_ircil ,,, ,'j ,jll('l i,:'i,iiL) !ii)i.fr.jii,rt.,,,,,,,t_ii:r:,.tr.i,l:i,rl,,,,,ritr.r),,r."'1,;;lir;il:rrrNll,'i;;,r,il;,,r,:it,',,r,, -"' l,':::l ri\ii-:i .,f:ttr:rri;:r'1:ii'r;r, fl'l.i.r:'r.r/i1'',1y1. :']'r-r r.'i.i r',,i r.ir,-ii rr.; , i,ilir) ui.,ir,""',ir.i,rrj, ) 1i).rl ir,!.,.. 1r1:rir..it).,.,0, iiTrrl l,,ria:.i,. '..,,i:'rrr,,,"l.,,..i.ct .i.r-oi,r, i,j.it; l\1., i; l;r1 i.,-,,,.,, !:jJ1il i.rl_,:r:,i r'1r r.11,,.r;'91111i,,, ,.r,"r1, i1.,,..!iiilr,Lt:i:r j,i ij,.i,\ irrrLrri r:ji.1-.i.r.l \ii.r:,u.,r.',',,"t:f,,;i";l:],,;i;,',,:;.;ii:;;,,;,rr,, at-r11 !91'11'g1,1,,i, ii)t.i ir), iilr.s t)tesrllr (io (jtair,, S(rll and Lor,vey u;tr,o ilrc saril (u  TO lL{y1i /\NlJ,l..O }l{jL,ll ihc a0o\,(r di,scribed pien)jsejj, tolielhei ,,rrlh all and .rrr;ular, eppiiilcir'nics ,,hetcLo 1i: ue iignts an\,,,visl 1,elor,gi'g uitro Li:c sa.tcl .;.u(: il; ,lr,i,,.. l,; ilil r I'il,s iLCir's liitr.l asslgn.s tore,rel i iltd .,ri; rio )ter'qli' irinrj rJ il:" 1 Cir j.r,,e l. , ,r ul t.l beils, c;rccuirls anii airir,rini:,lia.rorr;, io \'\iiil'faili :irrcl ,i'or.uvr:r lJefrtnd ail aird siogula, th: ;aid pr€llitses ilnto tjr€ r,arcr Jeit'lll .J rli:Sl;i-, lr,i.t, llclfS aoal a55jgi:, agalt!st .r/a.i.1/ ,!isirl ,,'hl.llsocvai l.v,,iull.i r Lainliug, oi io clerjiti l[e sanre, 0r auy pan l-ireiei,F, wlin.rs-q (j [l ji, itirIc. I .li r),.rj tii:i i, tirr :j tiris lJ.1 i;ir cal, ci 'V::.r:,,'"s, 1., , J..tlt(:-r0; .;; ..rt: .l \r., r /"/' / / WJ/!../ l :, /:,, ll : it' r.' : ::.t,,1,, r.!..e. 2.(, a:i:l !!.! .,./ (:,:'::1,./2,:^:l).:., . .. .  r vrr\ r. /\ur\r\ () \Y1, irl) Gillllill 'BoIr0l{}r i[I!, lhe unr)rrsi!ned, .,. lioiiliy pu]rlic i;r au(j i(rl,:iaj(J c0unby drl(l \'\/urrLv anri sta.Le. blale, on i)ris ,r..,,,".,,^..^,r.. trl,i" rlay pelsonally eppear,erl t , t. \, vo .',U ilr.rl lillotln to riie'uc l;e illc a.nd illii t,;, gi\ 1,,1o lltlr't',.; ra,iss rrc sLrlscril;eri r.r uLe ioicg0irg i'sit,rrne .1,heyeac)rexecuLci]|]tesaltir:ior'|iielrx|iroseSu'.c,,on,i.l.,io,i.;,;"':''":::::]nS||.!]]]1e])r,lltti:lll]rnoir'}ec]ge "?rriirie ' his rvjfc' bo;h t;':0"; rt rhc sairi ilaviitg irec, oxariri.cd by r{i,i..,J, rLir.jri. i ,,r,irc ri, rhc ,n,;''o" i,"rlil1lli.; rne pl'ii'iry aricl air:r.i fl0lr jard ir(rf Lir;Jrarirl, arrr iraviirEl Lie " Lhe sr! nc iullt r:t;l;,ined to )rc,r, sr!nc ,,tit.,, t. ,, llri r-]i,, . -.- :"':"'.'""'tt she , lhc r',rra';'., 1rr'': ";'1,i,,'j;t,,ili'.,, '"''' ,r,,ish ,uo r,ri;.,aci ,1'. sa:.nc ior ,- ,,,,,,,,,,,i-]'lllr':f:i1;;;ll:;i'' ._-e r.e.!/w,vLr 4,ru lerr,rocLaL)0i-r " "'hrr acianclcreeri, lli;rcjn expr.esserl, anci she ri, anr.l lhat she dicl no.c I i \i) Surll., 0J,, 0lri,,lCl! this itr0 it. ., -':: dr,y oi lYlir\;y' a, l. rg{;0 l[']liii S'.i,'ri'1., I c0uNJ.Y oir.. ..iilil.lt Il.r;I ORE i\{Ei .i....:t., ,i.rr. L........ .i.1' i:.,.t' .) |.-: . .1, ll[]Oi{Lt iiiti, lusDatrrj, atiti lu,i,ilg t.:.c :ri;r iLrlty i::p)aurerl ncl([or/]rdged suclt jnstruiltcIt 1.0 ijc Lr]" rolsLderaijoI tbrrch r:pr*sei, a,ru til,i CIt/iJN UN.uti { ir4V t:i,tiri) ;|\L ii ri.l ,r.n(i lile rairi Cou;rt1,, al ofiiccs in Sar: Aug as Ljne t l)re da.y anr) ;,e ar ,/.., .,.. (_ ,."/:trt:. .,,..:/,1 ,/ .,, ti ci)ti il ,/ ., .,/._. f-lcrli (tollr,, Cou, ,, So.,: r!d:*,, ,1,1,,._rdinri, texrs  ; i:li :i1 E"': ii* t\ i i\\ l ''{ jl irl lt: : i'l E i'(:' \'.. j ,\. r$ ' r"l i'.'- ; iiti lli li. rr1.. li. , f. =a,-j !r:EllR, 'z :te 9. tt;a t. 3. I ll\ til f ].1 .r.ii 'i ti 'il'. i" I' l.i\\ ' ir I 3 i:'ii; *!r r i:l1i: lll il'.' i. ''1, i() . )i' li :]'". t,?j= I il ii I tl '1..,i11" rj'. :'it-" H o c t 'd .)' " ;:li: lJ i r: l. '. [il ]l l,,' n ;{ :,'.lJ o i ir ".tr I ,-j' 'lli ' ji' f:\ t.. uil. ;l' lr t l;-jri "i- i :ir, ;,, l ii ,i i ':: ii o 2)' ii ri.. tij_ gi\. i'r I : ? I t,,\ l\. ,-..:,7 ir i;il ;\.1 | p I i; 'i ll ils Vl t.."'J l:i il ,1'\ o :J l' ',,1.;,..:', I ,'l 't t,  NO cv -12"9344 CHARLES and MARY LOU AI.F-ORD. S\ IN THE DISTzuCT COURT rll| Plaintiffs il ,1, ;h' l ''"1,i | "ll''', ti;i {ii)l(' ul - l'r VS. , t .ll rAi\r :; i).t.,,, i.iil,/.:r, ll :ir | { )l : lJlsiit:t (iltrrii OF ROBERT THOMAS Mcr(EIT'HEN. iiAt\l ill l{}tWlFli;, I f:XAli | ,.r., (;I i,f EOG RESOURCES. ItVC., arrd CENTRAL TEXAS LAND SERVICES. Defendants SAI\ AUGUSTII\E COLNTY, ]']]XAS PLAINTIIIFS'MOT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COUR]': Now COME', CHARLES and MARY LoU ALFoRD, hereinafterreferred to as,,plaintiffs,,, atrd move the courl for a summary juclgment declaring the ownership rightr; of the parties to oi1. gas, and other minerals in and under those tracts of land clescribed in a Wananty Deeri dated April 25" 2003' by Jack Jessup and his ivife. Annie Elizabeth Jessup, to Charles arrcl Mary Lou z\lford. 1r suppoft of their motion Plaintif]'s show as follorvs: 1. MOTION UNDER fRCp 166a This is a "conventional" motion for summar,vi udgment under Rule 166a of the Tnxns Rut_ps oF clvll- PnoceouRE. Plaintiffs contencl tliat there is no issue of material fact necessary to be determined in order to decide this motion. The motion is based on interpretation of the deed which is central to this suit and can be clecided as a matter.f'raw. Page 1 Alford v Nlcl(eithen. ct al MSJ  s uMMARv ;uoci^airNT EViDEN cE As summary judgment evidence to support their motion Plaintifi-s provide the fbllowing: 1. The warrantt' Deed in question. execlited by Jack Jessup and his wife" A*ie Elizabeth Jessttp, conveying tlx'ee tracts of real property iocated in San Augustine County, Texas. That deed is dated April 25" 2003,and it is filed for record in vol' 38, Page 298. of the official Public Recorcls of San Augustine county, Texas. A true and co.rect copy is marked as Exhibit A and atteLchr:d hereto. 2, The deposition testimony of Ken Muckeirol,, the attorney who prepared the deed. His testimony is founcl on pages ?-2-28 of his deposition. nrarked as Exhibit B. and a copy of those pages is attachecl. 3. The deposition testimony of connie vaughn, the legai assistant who assisted in preparation of the deed ancl attached the properly description. pages 19-26 of her testimony are marked as Exhibit C ancl attachecl. 3. FACTS Jack and Annie Jessup agreed to seli three tracts of land plaintiff's. They rvent to the to office of l(en Muckeiroy in San Augustine" where he of1-rces;and operates San Augustine county Abstract company' The parlies told the employees at the officr: u&at they wanted dc,ne, and docunrents were prepared. One of those documents ll,as a Warranty l)eecl. That deed contained pro'isions which are the core of this case. First, the deed containecl a section regarding "Reservations and Exceptions,,which reacl as Page 2 Alfbrd v McKeithen, et al MSJ  follows: Reservations rrom conve'ance arLcr warranty: For cilantor, a reservation of'the ftlll possession. benefit, and use of T'ract 'fwo for the remainder of the life of Grantor, a life esrare. 's Exceptions to conveyance and warranty: Easements, rights-of-way and presuiptive riglits" whether of record of (sic) not; Jl prese'tly recorded restrictions, reservatiorls, covenants, conclitionr, a,il ancl gas leases, mineral severances and other instruments, oLher tharr liens and conveyances. that affect the property A11 the pa|ties initialed this section to indicate their understanding and agreeme't. No reservation of minerals by the grantors is mentionecl in the deed itserl. Second, the deed made relbrence to an attached exhibit. The deed stated the purpose of that attachment as follows: , . . and being more particularly described b.v metes and bouncls on Exhibit "A" attaohed hereto. Unforlunately' the legal assistant who helped p1'epa1'e the deed copi,:d a properly description from an earlier conveyance that contained not only a metes and bounds description of the properly but a mineral reservation lronl that prior conveyance (Muckelroy depositi,:n, pages 22-2g:connie Vaughn deposition. pages 19-26), This lawsuit is the, result of her error in faiiing to read the entire description that she copied before attaching it as an erxhibit to the deed. 4. RULtrS OF CONS'fI{LJCI-ION F'OR D]]EDS Generally the same rules of coustruction are applicable to deeds as 1o contracts. The goal of the court should be to give effect to the intention of the parties as expr:esr;ed in the language they used' In the absence of some conflict in the language used the court is limited to consideri's what Page 3 Alfold v McKeithen. ct ai MSJ  is found in the "four corners" of the docr-une nt. Lucrrel v. white, gr 9 s.\^/.2d 45g. 46r_462 (Tex. 1991); Coghill v' Grffith,358 s'w.3d 834 (Tex.App.-Tyler, 2012,pet"den.), In the case before the court there is no need to iook outsicle the "four 0ol'ners" to asceftain the intent of'the parlies, The courl must consider whether an ambiguity exists. If there is no ambiguity, then the court cannot consider extrinsic evidence. Cherokee .[4/ater Co. v. F'reeman 33 s.w.3d 34g, 354 (Tex'App'-Texarkana 2000, pet.den.). Neither palty has pled arnbiguity and in this case there is no ambiguity' The parties clearlv expressed their intent in rhe cleed itself. Given the opporlunity to list in the deed any reservations or exceptions they intended, ilre parties iniiialed a provision which reserves a iife estate to the Jessups in one of the tracts but reserves no minerals. There is no conflict between the provisions of the deed itself and the attachecl exhibit, The deed provides for no reservation of minerals and then states that the attachment is attached for a limited pulpose. i.e. to provide a metes ancl bounds description of tht: tracts conveyeci. The attachment is not incorporateclby reference for anv other purpose. ]lhus therre is no conflir:t between the terms of the deed itself ancl the attached exhibit. Since the answer in this case is found in the deed itsell. not in any extrinsic or parol evidence, this case is well-suited for a ruling by the court as a matter of 1aw. In fact" it is effor. if the deed is not ambiguous, for the trial court to take evidence and submit the interpretation of the deerl to a jury, Ensearch Exploration, Inc. v. wintmer.718 s.w.2d 308. 310 (Tex.App.-Amari11o i9g6, writ. ref d n'r'e'); Prairie Producing Co. v Schlctchter,'/86 S.w"2ct 40g,413 (l'ex.App.-Texarkana 1990. writ denied), Page 4 Alfbrd v Mcl{eithen. et al MSJ  5 THE eUEST'roN: DOES THE REFI,RENCE To rHE priopER.ry DESCRIPTION FOR ME'IES AND BOUNDS DESCzuPTION AI,SO INCoRpoRATIi THE RESERVATIO}{ oF MINERALS L:\NGIJAGE? There is no reservation of minerals provision in tlie deed the.ressups signeci. So ttre question is the effect of the attached exhibit. The answer is found in the deer t,he 4V of Texas, reporeed by compuberized stenoc,l1)e SeaCe 2t machine at' t,he offiees of ,T. Ken Murckelrr>y, 10g F,osrt,er zz SE,'eet,, Cenger, Texas 75935, pursuan., t,o Lhe Texas R,uIes ZJ of Civi.L Procedure and the provisi.ns st,*t,ed. on t.her z+ record o:r attached heret,o. z3 ( tS Gretchen ShoreCourt Reporting \vuo, 7, r58-2'183 * Fax: (903) 758-4890 '' ww:w.gretchenshore.c;onr ph, r,,. /on2\ PLAINTIFFS' EXHII]IT B  R5iil::ftf$%ytruriir! ALFORD vs ROBE:R l r Hotu1A5 McKE:r-r-H'N F,age> 2.2 a" Do yor: recal.L e:f your c)wn memory €rrry dise,ussion 2 with any of tirese perople you ba,.l,;ed 1:o a,bout: t:I:is 3 transaet;ion :i:egilrd.i*g, anyth,ing. havlne Ler do wi.bh 4 nrineral s ? 5 A" i\o" 5 (l:ixhi bi t il rnarle ed ") 7 p. I\Tow, "tet rnc ..iherw you whagrs lreen nrarkeel as B Fixhibie Nei" ;2, whieli i.'i 6r werrr*rit;y deeet lui,eh v,enclor,s 9 lien " 10 ,i\nel o.o .yout icle:ri:if:y wha.': Ir:n showing yor: 11" here as ExhibiB IVo" Z? L2 A" yes, .[L's i* derec] i-hat we prerpa:reel" 13 0' Ar.r x'i"g}:L. ?\n.{ :tt app€rars ber ,krave been signed 14 by Lhe J'essupsi, cor.r,cct;,i 15 A, yei;" L6 0, And f.:: i;hc: lad.ies a*ci ge:rLIe:nen of tire jr.l.ry L7 who may :RoE u,rr.de:::sLaneJ ex:ar:t,J.y a,l1 L,he proeedure ir: reerl 1B esbate t,ransaterti.o*s i the Af 1c;i:ctsr R.trrles ar.e noE shown ern 19 that doetuneRl:, elor::ee L? 20 A" OEher than bh.ls gz,ant,ee,s crt_ t,her top" 2L 0. A1:L rj.g+ht-" A::ag<> 24 r navc beon not:eci in t:hat cleeell 4\ 2 g " yeri, ,un Eiraf. Eect,ion. 3 p" Anet w*aE,s; b]:.e purpos€l of hervi,ng lhe: par*ies 4 inibial in therE seclion? 5 a" we erlways war:t bor-h par:ties bo be aware o,i: wha. 5 is belncJ rcset:rved" An(l sict whoev,et:l :* vlhoevetr has t,l:em 7 sign up or si,gn the ciocrurren' is Laugirtr bo go t;hrough b.har: B and expl'ain t:er t1:,em therE yourri,s reservi.ng wlrat,ever,s 9 noEed herrc a:nc1 (:oRveiyirrg arly obhcrr :irrt,ex,est, t]:,at vou 10 might ,have irr the px,opetrt:ies:" 11 A" Okay " lvow, there is a?,e ar: heei bo FixhibiE AIo z " Lz a page elr mor('er t:han oner 1.rage Lrrat a])pears t. iravc some 13 deseription " r*etes a*d bound-rs descri.ptions '= of somc: L4 properby" 15 l{" Xeij. ae th a" A1:t ri"ght" r, ca.L.l yor.r:r'al:tenLron f irr;t of: al.l L7 hn bhe d,eseriSrtj.on that-,'s: err,r tire Lop of .Lhe seeond page 18 the d.eed u,rrde:r, Traet, I " 19 A, yes " 20 A, Do y.ou lenow t.he sou::ere of Lh.a b elescription Lhat: 2L is abtaehed Lo t;his deed, )lxthibiE IVel " 2? aJz A, yes" lltrs a rL-,rs a deetcl fronr .]"g50 w]:ere bhel 23 ,Jessups reeeivecl t,ha i t,:rae t " zE! (Exhlbit 3 rnarke,d") /,3 0, Atl ri,ghb " !,et rne show yc:u what's br3en marlced ;I \f Ph: (903) Gretchen ljhc;rre eourt lReportirrg u Fax: 758-2183 tgosl Ts8r.b9o'-T *^v*.gr.erchenshore.com  CHARLES AND fulARytg]J.ALFORD .fHON4AS Ken Muckerroy or- 0" 30/20,13 vs ROBERT McKEIHEN Yage 25 I as Exhil::LE ilTo" " ,ts thaB Lhe deeil yo,u.,::e ref errin,g t,o? 3 2 g. I beJ.i.eve it is, [€s" 3 g" rs bher pr.per*y er.escr,ipt,ion sh.wn for Traet 4 No" r' i:r E:xhibi.t rvo" 2 verb*r.i:m -.. a v*rl>:r'lnr eopy of Ehe 5 der;cript-ton shclrn: in t,hre deed bhaL rrve riho'n you t,hat,,s 5 ber:n Rra::}re,L llxhii:it lVo" :]? as A" 'Yes" IL ie's er eopy i:rom l:lLat doeu:nent" A" ts it: acbual,,Ly a tr>hot,ocopy o5: t:he A" Yes " 0. derse:r:ljltion :iEs;eIf,? 11 ;\ " Y'es . 1a LZ A. l3o 1t: harsrrr L ber:r: reeyllgcL, it:'s aetuallV ju.sE 13 been eo5lj.er1? L4 A" '[,hatrs r]oi:rcct" ilust a phoEoeopv. 15 0" /\.Lt z.ight " itnei :i.t: you <;er:rnpa::ed t,he ee:n narr{ed a$ Exhibitr lrl,r:" 3? 4 g " r tnl '- r Inr RoE su:rc .t *nde::sLand yorril quesbior:,, = 5 p" rs rha-t a-iso a eorri.ir:'uali-ir:* erf thcr ileseri6rbio* 5 0f a mineral :reservabion t^at is shown i* *re proper:by 7 deseription j,:r tixhil,ib IVer" 3? B a" I t:hinlc itr is;, }r€s" v Q" AIJ r:Lgl:E " j.s thaE lrorLietn of bhei, pz.operty 10 deserlpt:ion that: is shr:.xrrrl on elre bop of: bhe seeond pag€ 11 of Exh:r-krit I\o" il inelucleet :Ln the eleseri,pB:Lorr, fo:r Tlraet L2 I\o. 1 :rrr Exhibit; I\o" 2?, 13 A" trTo" L4 O" So i.s:LE a farrir.sLa,t,e:mcnL Uhen LhaL Ll:e 15 properLy' deseriSri-ron sho'n f:or ?r;r'ae t \fo" I in Exhibib 15 hlo" 2 was phoLoe:opieel f.ram the ctese:::i.pt,ion rn ExhibiE L1 trlo' 3, buE Eh'e alntire d.esc::ipti.on wals; :?.o8, phoeocopied? 18 A, yeah " ,Ihls entiLe+ de:sc:ription, her,e was 19 photocopied and .plaeed j.nLo thj s 28 a, But noL ZL A exhi.J:iL " 4Z R w. the: entirer eleseri.6rt.ron ;refe::r,r:rg, Lo t,hc 23 mineral. :reserv,altoR/ eor::ect p z2 A. Thab'g eorreeL" 43 0" Olcay " Do V'orr, jrReiw lvh,o nracie bhe clecir;i.o:: Eo t, \, f\ Gretciten lShore Court Reporling Ph: (903 ) 7sB-2 I B3 '' Fax: (903) ZSB-48€)0 . ww"w.gretchenshore.com  .HARLES AND N/Arly L^olJ ALFORD Ken Mucke loy on 0.1/30/2013 vs R.BERI.TH.MAS McKE'.HEN page 27 ] i pl:.t'oeo5>y Bhe elescri.pLJ.on or: a po::flion oJ: the ciese'iption 2 frerm Exiri.b:Lt l\er" i] anej i:1se::b it orr thel i ;rEtaehmenB E. 3 Exhibib I\o" Z? 4 A" :[ be.lieve thab wari I{s" Vaugi:n" 5 p" ConnjeVaughn? 6 a" y'es, €li::" Ie lvon1cl have bee::r *er job as bhe 7 elosero .Uhe etnei prepari:rg 1_Lre doei.unenb, t.o prepare rha I exl:ibi Es " 9 q" l!ow, if yor-i wou,ld, go bereie E' lixhibi* No" Z, 10 w,hi.eh is the derecl Lkrex.e" 11 A" OJeay. L2 0" TJhere, i,s; er refe:dc*ee or:, thc 1:i.rsE pagye r:f E,rrats 13 deerd bo vrr:at is at:eaehed" eran you loeert,e bhaE fo:r ::nei) 14 A" fes" IF A" i\:rd what: j s Lhat r.ef er.erlce i ae th A" llL says, ,'El:*.Lrib:Lt-. A aLt,ac,hed hereto at, Lh<: L7 joott,onr of T::aet .t and ,l,,r.a(it 2 ";r a" J\11 r.igiri: " ,[,eb, s see w]tab 1t says Anci :Lt, " 10 :refers tei j.t_ be5,n-gi rno:.€) par:t,ieular.Iy daseribed a mej:es 20 and. bounils cleseriptio:r, eorreerl,/ an AL l+" )i eS. zz O" uo 't'?r J.rr \r^iir n,.' J \Jur uJ-,IILLUfJ eLS aauorney pracbicing in 23 E,he area oJ: real erst-,ai-et -l.erw, Lkre dese ript,ien, oj: lfraet 24 Ner " L eon.tained in Erxhlbit: .r\ro. 2 eu:f,f ieiernt i:r ibse.if to 25 icientify tire proper::t,y lteirrg co:r.ueyeu Joelieve, at, ,[he t,:L:me b]ra,t you aebaehed bhat' desieript:Lo:r bhert eorrta:i.*erl thal- :ini:rer,ai. ::eservat,ion,, bhae yclr"l lvere ea::rying ouL wj:at, t-he j.ntenL of bhe parb:Leri; was ? 3 A" No, si"r" 1R (Exhib:LL 3 rnac.lcecl" ) 11 A" Let :ncl shovr yolr wherL,s "oeerl nrarleed as Exhi,bit: 1a &A No.3" Ancl tlLat:rs aR e,Id,er clec:ci, I)o you:reeoqniae iU? A' That i.s - - a:ppear:br Lo bc t,he same dese:ription 1t 4= bhat T copieet fr:om -* 0" oleay " th A, f or: Lhis exhibit " 17 0" Ole ay . Does i:lra"t appcr6rr to b€, l.he souree of bhc; 1A descri6>bion Ll:at; you eop:iecl anel plactetd on aBtached t,o tc under Lhe title ,Iract. "i, uneler the deed, birat yor.1 p:reparedi, 20 A" yes, sii.r" ZL A" Oleay" By ther lvay, thcrrers a, retfere*ce J:ere" tz 3E says so:nekreldy -- :Lt. a.ppears t,hat soniebody handwrot,el 4J *R "Tra.eE, 1r' anil underli.:reei it. Do yr:u ]enow w,ro wraBe zzi bhab i::.? 1,3 A. ThaL vrits me" \_T\ (irelel'en lihc-rre Cour t ,F?r+nnrl Ph: (903) 7 sB-2183' rax: \vyv, irrn Ur rv 't loiiel isl]+ebo'"Y"',i),Ju'*.g*,t.hersnore.com  35ffit |-- i:.fiii #ilil,b8.u1AL Fo RD vs lRo BE RT rH o MrAS McKE r"r s EN Page 23 0" And bl:aL was not Srarb oJ: the petrbion bl:at you 2 aetually cx.aeEJ,e e ? 2Q A" yes, slir " 2L A" Was tiralt simlrly that yori clj.d as a ma,Eee:r of 22 your personar eiroiee o' rvas t,hat: sornart,h,irrg thal: yr:u werc 23 instruebed that ysu must do? 24 A" Mr" Mr"reke1roy. h.ael nre cler bhat_" 25 0" Oleay." And wb.at wsuld you Lyp,ica,tl.y ul.e1 have t;ak:err l:he doeualent,si 1"8 to have Lhem rec:ctrcled L:l:e:nselvcrs " Iq R Bo All ri.ght " l\:rd, .l.cL, er 1_all< abo*L Lhai: ref ererreo 20 the ,$270 . Ttrere's a. rlat e arrcl bhe:r€lrs a ehe,::lc nurnber " 2L Do you k:Row who wroLe t,hert on there? AZ That j.s rny hel,ne,trv:ri t.ing " 4J R Ca:n you te1.1, f:ro:rn that lvho ae.b,ua_IIy rnade 24 papnenE eo yeu? l5 IVo o s j.:r." ( tS Cjretclren lihore Court Reporting Ph: (903) TsB-21tj3 . nix: loooj igi:+airo 'i- r*'r.grntchenshore.com  CAUSE NO. CV-12.9344 CHARLES and MARY LOU $ IN THE DISTRICT COURT ALFORD, $ $ Plaintiffs, $ $ vs' $ or $ ROBERT THOMAS McKEITHEN, $ EOG RESOURCES, INC., and $ CENTRALTEXAS LAND $ SERVICES $ $ Defendants. g SAN AUGUSTINE COUNTY, TX ORDER DENYING THE ALFORDS'MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Before the Court is the Alfords' motion for summary judgment. After considering the pleadings, the parties' briefs, the arguments of counsel, and the relevant authorities, the Court DENIES the motion, .2013. -' JUDGE PRESIDING ORDER DENYTNG THE ALFORDS' MoTIoN FoR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE I OF ]  NO. CV- 1"2.9344 CHAIILES and NtARy LOU ti.LtrORD. plaintiffs S l,V I'FIII I)j|ST'RICT'COURT VS. ROBERT THOMAS Mct{EIT,rtE}i. $ 0p EOG RESOURCIjS tNC.. anct CENTRAL TEXITS I,AND SEI{VICES. [.]efendanis rs SAN aL;GUSTINL, CCUN ty, t.EXAl! EI"aINTIEIL.I:-TJt{xRr)_AM&r[-x.]!*i{}_ar&IGIL\,AJ.r_rE,rI-T{a}{ TO TIIE HONORABL,E.IUDCiE OF' SAID COTJFI'I: Now colrrili, cl{ARLI]s anclMAllY t,ou AL,FOI*I), he,rr:irLafterreferred to as,,plaintiffs,,, complaining of RoIIIIRT TFIOMAS Mcl(EIl'FlEtrr, EoG RElioUllcES, lNC., ancl cEN.tFG.L TEXAS LAND SITRVICES, het'einafter retbrred to as "l)r:fbr1d.nts." and fbr causo .r action show as follows: 1. DISCCV LrltY Plaintiffs intend to concluct cliscoi,cry uncler I)iscovery lllarr Level 2. ),. .IURISDICTiOI\ This court has jurisdiclion over the subjeet. firattel oJlttrii;case as well as jurisrlir:tio' over the parties. I']age i Allbrci v ivlcKeithen. et rti -1c .Antn(l l,ctn  3. VENU]] Venue is llxrper under'l'Exns rllvll PRac'r'rcE & lrGvtDrE:; cous $s 15.002 anras crvri- pr:lsr.rL'rcrr & I{pH,,pirrs coor. In the alternative to their plcading,s of nutu'i rnista.ke and reeluest for reformation set out in r3tc / alfbrci v Nlcl(eithen, er al 3d Amnd Petn  sections 6-8 of tlLis petition, Plai'tiffs show that evern if trrey are uiiabre to reform the Jr:ssup deed to them based on tntttual mistake there is a dispute over rvh.at rnirrerals they orvn a':rribit A. on tirat date, Defendant Mcl(eithen wronglluliy entereclupotr the subjectprolre'ties,ncr nru, cr)nrinues to wrthfrold lrossession from Plaintiffs from all or part a 01the premises. Defendant McI(eithen has ust:d and .ccuiriecl the tra'ts of iarrd describecl i' Exhibit A attached since July 13 ' 2010' Durirrg that time perjod he has i'er:eivcd cornpe'sation fbr Jeasing the oil' gas' and other miuet'als itr ;Lncl under those trac;ts, has exe,r.{,isecl control over thcrse i'tr:rests by conveying the right to tline' clrilt and oilrerwise exploit a'clrern'r,e trrose interests, ancr has r:eseived royalties fiom De:lbnclant Eo(:i for the sale ancl rernovar of gas ancr otrrer oir, gas, 'arural and minerals in and u'nder one or more o1'those tr.cts, 1-rro'rarue oiliis use and o'cupancy of those tracts' and the value of the ojl, gras' and oth'r nrine'als removt:iasLa'dile.vice's' I'heyseer<.acleterrninal.ionofttteir.rightr;toiire,ii,gasa'd other minerals in and u'der rhe: two acr.e tract rhey acquiri:cl Ii..' tlre Jessups. plai'tiffs shoulcl be awarded costs and reasonable and nec,:ssary altorr,ey,s fe(Jsi ag,irLst Defenda't Central J,eras X.and services under 37.00g $ of t'e 'rrxas crrvir_ pnec.rrc. & Iiir,iraEor'ri;coo.. 19, ATTORNE 'S F'EI]S Plai'tiffs te:coverl'of'arld fi'om rseeh thr; clefbndantr; for reas.nab[e and rrecessary attorney,s fees for breach of conlract' urtcler the tleclaratory J udgmerts Ao1:, and by way ol.treslLass t' try titre. WHEREFORE, plaintil.ls requesi that Lhe rjet.endanrs br: ci1c,d to appear and ansvyerr herein, and that upon final heari;rg the (lo'r't fi'd that the v,'arranty I)eerl vr,itri venclor,s Lien ciate,J Aprii 2..5, 2003, between Jack Jcsrsup and w,ife.,A,mrie EtizaberfL Jes;sup, ancl i.lharles Alfor.cJ and lvift, Mury Lou Alford, be refor.med to reflr;ct tjte tr.uc agre(jnlent beiweern tht: lraities that no rLinerraI res;ervation as to Tract one oc'c:url'ecL; thal 'itt th': alLernative," if ,:efo'n;Ltiorr 'f instrument rs not gi:anted, the trrr.: court judicially fi'c1 a'cl declare uttdet: the Te>ias J)ec1ara1.'r;, .fudgrnenrs Act th,t unde' the tenns of that deed Plaintifl's a<:quirecj oner-half of all owrLersrrip riglrtrs of'rhe Jessups t. arLy oil, gas, and nrinet'als in and ttncler rhe tt'iici of I1'7.5 acrr:s dr:scribec iri trriit deecr; that rhe.our-r find and ;udicially declare r:hat there was no reservation ,rf ary oir, p,as, arul minerars in and un.er those 'trLer Page 13 Alfold v McKeithen. et al 3d Amnd iretn  tracts of land identified as '1rac1s Tu'o ancl Three in the vrarranty r)cred witrr r,/encror,s Lie,; that thr: court issue a mandatory injunctio'ordering, Defe'dant \,4cl(eitherrr io execute anil deliver a lLeleasr: of Liens on the propr:rly conveyed to the plaintiffs or, in tJre alternative, the court fi'd and ju.icialry declare in its judgnrent that thosie liens have been satisf iecl in lull and are deciared released ancl authorize Plaintifl's 1o record thc judgment in the ofllcial llublic R.e<:orr]s of sian r\r-igr_rstirre county, Texas; that the cou't order Plaintiffls' title and ownershiP inlerest irr the oii, gas arrd other.minerarr; in and under the tracts in question superior to that of De:fi,,nclant vicl(eithen; thar l,laintiffi; recover. all costs and reasona'ble and necessary at'rorney's fees against all rJejenda'ts;that t,laintifft recovel. all costs of this proceeding; ancl that Plaintilrs recover such other i:eiiefl whether in law or in equitv as they may be entitJed to receirrer. J:i.especrfuJly :;u bry i rrecl. '' i" :, -r-onr -"i' ' "" -:j':r--.- R6rie' Iirare Bar lJo. 1 723 9000 210 Norrh Street ),iacoglhibit,,A,,for the express puryose of providi'g a description of the property; there,fbre, any la'guatr;e in thar der;cription Page 2 Alford v McKeithen Mtn Constrire Document  that refers to a rese|v:Ltion of rrtinet'als is surplusage ancl slioulci lle clisrega.rded by the cour1. In this regard Plaintiffl; rel'y on the authorities and argument coniainr:du:lrfi'#t:nihl,XiXerrv 'ftlffi;*:i arc rutriued unrir enci'ote cieo.*ibeti is 6Lly pniriar:eorrii'g rc, cont€xftsquil.f 0, oil,gr{rit. lou:u *r, anrl pronouos rnelucJc ffifU, tirc plurni, :^-i,:,,,;)) #"mg,* /: )) irXf f itll'l  I 1,.__-.--. lUl;, llTAl Ii Otr :|EXAS (l0t.n'l'rv rJIr SAI.1 A:ijjUSTtNE . . l'tus i.n,tlulniirrl \!.ttg tti or( lus 1:efbre rnc by JACI( Ltu ,zJrh rlay or .c pil, zOditotuleclgi:d P \vl$E, AIiNIE ELIZAIjEITI J'.L,SSul) 'l r:xr"s 7 59'12. /!rr:'*- R:N:ioRr:,rrri,r+li,l"iifsi,''il;;.Jiil !i;ri ?#rtii;,,r(Er.no1f, A,r"f()rl.r'y 1'"-1r-i /') cr  ( , \-)\-J .I -'1, '11;$i[-J;)tii,I i' '- ,;;*ll,il-;;,1;;,li;il-riill*,;:rr,ir[;ii'l;i*r;,i:;ii']rr;;;iF[ ,fli;iii,;:.:' $ffi-,,:;xil,i1:l*Fdim-.::1i:::;;l;ii;;f'ili*;:;;*ii::;,;*n'il'$:-ffi:'::'- irt llilil{;;i+lrl+l;i*l;,;l llmi ii; +l'ri,',i$ri,i: i:[;il'n,,*],r;,, -'',fi;$i;ii,;ili,;il;iirt:;i;-illfiTiiiillili:'i,fi:u:ti#r.rHrr*"iil'i.iirl;;ij Bu v : e *ffi,f,,m* xqq;;re;;:il:[r:;,ffi*tri,;ffiff y: H;iii' $'"fi1:i3 l,;;u ;;.,: t";iq*k,f .i,;'r*l,Ir:ni:i $il,,-;,,i,,,r'tir;;ii*"h.,l*ir,dirn',,," J{I;tii,,'$'ji:irllfl.f#ili;*.r'l*lqi;*l'r'r-fft'qll;':lsff:*^"li.flls Tt',fiji;"r;-:rrtr;-;;;, -iiifi.,rlr,r^il;;;;ii*ili;rl*;*"r,,,, H;s;r; ij i,,ru,,ro,*flr:r, xc ;;fl,'!l':,;:t;;:,,i:;;ll,l,u,l;tl"tjiijr;;:":5'l?"iifiliru':.1,*ll"f*:;?;,,,;;r,., ;;,o.,llll" _:r "" ' fi-i-.:-*-',:1:\:r:: ^ft txt"'*,, ". '-'i - ,- , r 7r o i' - - -.:::g t' t:('Ef:t, l.or c,.r p.t,r"eri. or l.q4d, :., ar I :::-t :tt't'"t)x ,:1.rua.irad i ^ 6^. , t)re 0sq116 ie'',',l:p,',,;i;; beir:p; ou 'ii 0eq1v1'' ?"xa€,, il;:;:: ::JT:;, -ll-,'i';,.,.";";;.;;-;ilti:'e'; *::_:"::j"ll il,,,,:'; 'il: ,,;;:; ::i.;:,;: ;.":f , I !t'eq na( o'c16 o{'ci!'u A.u$uEtrJ.n. ll,:.;e":il"J::ll":',,:::.,::"::; fu vo.l.uos 92, }, lrl) [ cr,]rr1b,r'r a6ys.s. h^r". kao!/d 3r'Dcj'n{J ,:^l.st'!:orosrl of i;Lle lrudr r)nd t)).urs dss{lr:rt,od., ss{]rlt,od, Es r'l:; lof I ts:r1()lt{}l:N(i r: t\ )){. r r.* J )r iL{. ,IL- - ." fi *" o.l ""';l;J; d'$ )las'| 240 rec'b r'.rr $h€ ;lll:,':,":,;: ;:";;": ,;,;.i'1 f :;::,.'iill':;;:T:: crrer\' ;:a,o ,,8r, ;;l;1,::i:";;I:i :::l';x;":l]ckv i I ;il]il:l -'' i,i, r! tr!u Bi:€ires ro il-I24':)-,/21 dsr'1. 'fie€t urD rL()8' i/") i)arer.ral ,,,.,", ..,--:,..:! 29o l,/il leebl 75 *c'l'e t;ca'rt. :;;"";:-,,1'i,;l :v$o rlsai;'r 3o( :reet; il """,.,;l'l:l': ..i, :.-,,::';"-,,":*",;,,:',i;'';;;;;i;'-:':: tuo.r(r or j..,,r:r6 , '\o r/2 I'oet 1:o the t,e1gl'nr::Lg, : FY i.l Trt :'r. a .,^,.t,^urJ. " t\ " 04r23,20LS t S:02 SAHAGUSilHE C0UHTY DIST CLREK il fA}()836 27s 889 P.001,002 ,4 No. cv-12-9344 CI{ARLES and MARy LOU ALFORD, plaintiffs $ Nq THE DISTRICT COURT vs. ROBERT THON4AS MoIGITHEN, OF EOG RESOURCES, INC., ' and CENTRAL TEXAS LAND SERVICES, Defendants SAN AUGUSTINIE COI.INTY, TEXAS ORDER ON CONSTRUCTION BY COURT OF. WARRA]YTY DEED T,ROM.'ACN P. JESSUP ANI\IE ELIZ.A,BETH JESSUP rOErrAru,NS AND ALFORI) tarnn:g,zoos on this th* '[a day of May, 2074'came on to be considercd plaintiffs, Motion for court to consfrue Doc'rnenr Prior to Evid.ence and submission of Issues to Jury in Trial. All paties we'represent and also appeared by and through cormsel ofrocord. The cout conside.red the motiorl tho argurnents of counsel and the authorities provided by them, and makes the following rutrng und orden It is oRDERED that the warranty Deed &om Jack P, Jessup and Auie Elizabeth Jossup to Charles Alford and lVary Lou Alford dared April Ambiguous t' 25, 2003, is, as a matter of Not Ambiguous law: It is further 0RDERED that under ths rules of construction of documents that the language stating a minetal reservation found in the description of a I17 acre trac,t described as Tract I in Exhibit "A" athched to that deed; ./ ./ Is lacorporated into the Deed 4 Is not Inoorporated into ths Deed Pago I ofZ 0jf123r201 5 15:07 SAHAGUSTIHE COUHTY DISI CLEEK fAx)936 275 n89 P.002r002 *{ SIONED this the h_day of May ,2014. Pags2 of2  CAUSE NO. CV-1a9344 CHARLES md MARY LOU ALFORI) $ IN TIM I}I,STRICT COTJRT $ Plalwlfis, $ $ vs. $ $ OF ROBERT TEOI\{AS MctrtrrTIIEFIi EOG RESOURCES, INC.i and $ $ *tif"tffi-%-- CENTRAL TEXAS LAIID SERVICES $ JEAN STEPTOE DtATICtEIEdt $ EANAJOIJSIIhF,TilAS Defendanl BY $ $ $ sAN AUGUSTnIE coItNTr, TEXAS LAI}MS AI{D GANTI,EMEN OF THE JURYI Aftsr.ths ,losfurg arquTenjs, you wiil go to.tFe jury room to deqide the oase, answer the questions that arc athchod, andreach i"ertict. v6u;;ddr* uv lJ*Ds -y--* the case *iilrotlo;urors only when you are all together in the jury roont- --' Rcmembu my previous inshlctions: Do not d.iscuss the sase with,auyone else, either person or by any other mean8. Do not do an} ina.er"a*t in ir,uou;;lo" about tu" o*. orlooa*t *y researob' Do not look up any words in aistionariw about the caso on the raternlt. Do not * oi tfrr iot rn"r, Dp not post informaffon sbnre any epocial knowlodge or exporienoes jurors' Do not use yotlr phone or any lvith th' other other elecfronir a*i.u J*fig y"* a"ufiuuous rsason. [The co,rt will give you a nunb* forany emecgency.l wnere o-tnrr* *uvi**o you in caso of an Aay notes you heve *: fo., your.o\rfnp€rff)nal uee. You may take your notes bflok into the j'ryroom and consultSg them {urini deliberations, il fellow jr'ors during your dolibe'ra:dons. Yournoi** ilo;;l"* orrcad yournores to your ure noiuJo*r9._Eagh of you slould rely on of the errldence and uot ue influsnced by nffiffiu,p;Tfffi#tJjif* the dt th"t anorher jruor You must letve your notes with the bailiffwhen you 8rc not deliberating. The beiliffwill give your notes to me prcmptly aftor colleoting a safe, seculE losadou and not disclosed theru from you. i*ttt rrkr;il;;*Tt", are kept iu tL *yoor. An* you complete yow deliberations, the l*T-$_T:[:ct vort notes-. when vou ars tlreased fi.r*:"ry duty, th; uJr;1p*i]i promptly destoy yow notes so that nobody satr rssd what you *otu. -' Here arc tho instustions for answering the questions. 1' Do not let bias' proj'dice, or syrnpathy play any part in your decision. \o\ ' N \l CHARcBoF ITIEcouRT R%, ebl l/10 I t0/200'd 68gzs/egffi)ffJ) )3U1t $t0 AIHnot tH|lsngvHvs s?:0 t s t0zj]z/?0  2' Boso your o*.tn-*t onfl.oott" Evidencs adrulttsd in court inst'cdons and questions' Do not coneld;; and on the law tbat is in these in ths cotttkoom. vr di-*"* any uevsD! arrl ovidence eyroence tnat that \ewae not adaritted 3' You are to mske uP yow own minde about the f8cts. you are the sole judges ofthe ;f"Tilydfi fJtrSiliffiH"H-.ioE*in*tes'ruony.C#o;*,ttoso*aw, 4' If my instructions'se a word in.a way that ia differsnt fr.om its ordinary meaniug, use meaning I give you, which willbe _;rrpo l;g"l ;rfiri,i"o. the 5' All the quertionr and answers arc lnportant No oue should say that any qusstion antwer is not important, or 6' Answer "ytt^'-1t-.-"-o::* *l qry|I* be based on a.prepoudt*o* of tru rmless you al,e told othenvise. A ..yes. answer must questiou requiree an answetr "vi{;;ii*il;you otao trran 1.;; ilil;jr aru told othenriseJ. whenevsr a yo.u. answar must be prepouderance ofthe evido,nce based on a [rurress you ar" tota-itterwierl. 7' The tmm'lrsponderunce of tho ovidence" mesns the qreatnr weight of presented in this case. If you credible evidencc *'yes" do not nra tnrra pteponderuu"e of-["--;;;;r" an$wetr, then anewir'ho-" Aproponaeta""i"o-rtn" support' a ntmber of wihesses or by the nrrmber;id;;rffr *td*";l; by tne ""t-iir*r,*d admitM in ovidenca, For a fact to a preponderance orthe HfilHf;|f ""td;*, ;;*urt roo aJtd; f;-i, rnoro likely E' Do not desids who you think ehould.w$.uerore you answ'r tbe questions aud snswcr tho questioru to match your thon just considering who will win' Do decision eoil'url*n q";;,il;;tulp without not discuss oiooGio the effest your e$wers will lave. 9, Do not ar'wer questions by drawing silaws or by any msthod of ohance. 10' some questions mighl-ask you fol a doliar amount, Do got agree a dollar amrount by adding in advanse to deside on b eacu:*"r;e ilffffithenfiguring the avonage. I I' Do not tade yoru ar8wors' For exarryle, do not Bay, *'I wlll anewerthis question way if you en.swer ahothcr quostion your my way.,, 12' The answers to the questione must ba based on the decision of at least Tle samo 10 jrnors muet *gtt on l0 of the 12 jurors. g-u="y a,urwer, Do not a$ea to be an*hing less than r0 j'ror{ evon if it#o"ldil;-.d;rfty. bound by a voto of As I have said beforc, if you do not follow theselnstuctions, you will be gurlty rriscondust, and I mieht ha,/e ro waste vo'r time aud th9 paftios' oru."r *;frftffiil;iiiri ofJuror o*ou., ovor again. This would morel, ard wo"lo;quiti i# topuy*r* a jwor urlake *v oruittu ortril, *unty to pay for ffitr#$'If 'orur, ditfrTpriin to stop and reporr it to me CHARaBoF THECorrnr J^0 I t0/800'd 6882Sfi98ffiff4 x3u-ll Isto AIHflol tHllsntvHvs s!:0t s t0zr?zr?0  Presidtng Juror: I ' when you go into the jury rnom to answer the quostionc, the first thing you will nesd to do ig ohoose aprestdingj**. 2. The presiding juror bas these ddies; a, have tlre comprete charge rcad aroud if it wiil be helpfirr to your delibsrationa; b. preside ovet your delibecatioru, meaning msnage the discussions, and see.that you follow these insfrushons; c. give writterr questions or corrunents to the beiliffwho wil give then to tho judge; d. rarite downtho answors you agres on; e. get the slgnatures for ttre verdict certificnte; and f. notif the beiliffthat you have rcached a verdict. Do you underst8nd the duties ofthe presiding juror? If you do not, please tell me now. Instructions for SiSninS the Verdtct Certificate; r You may rn'swer the questiotrs on a voto of 10 jurore. The same 10 jwors mu$ every answsr in ths oharge. This meaffyou agree on mey not have one group of l0 jurors agree on one nqswer and'a different soup of io iurois agr€6 0n another answef. o lf l0j'rors agree on ev€ry &rswqr, those r0 jurors sign the vcrdict, ' If I I jurcrs agrce on sv6ry answer, those 1r jruors sign tho verdist, on evetv a'swar' vou arc uuanimor.rs and onry the presiding juror H#l lfr."..lJ:fft*t ' AllJurors should deliberats on eveq qusstion. you may end up with alt lz of you agrceing on some u'lswers' while you sign the ve'rdisL only those 103iti ro ;i;;agrce on othcr anew'r*. But when wiro ugrrr oo ";iiarulw€r will sign the verdict, "i"ry Do you rurderstand thess instuctions? If you do rrot, please tell me now. CHARoEoFtlaCornr 3n0 t t0/?00'd gg$ffJ) 6sEZ SlZ )t3u-ll Isto AIHnot SMISn'VHVS 9?:0t s roz/Fzr?o  pFrIF{ITION,F r Throughout this oharge, the followingtenns shall have the rneaning indicated: 1' '"The Alfords" mesne the Plaintiffi charles Alford aod Mary Lou Alford. 2, '"Ihe Jessttp$" means Jaok p. Jeesup and Annio Elizabeth Jossup. 3' 'McKefthen" meflns Defendaut Robert Thomas MoKeithsn, in 0ll his oapacities. 4. "EOG" moans Defendant EOG Resources, Inc. 5' "cenhal rexat Land servicos"means Defemdant cental rcxas Land seruices. 6' Tho 'Deed" m.eqol-+e April zs, z00r lvananty ---rr? sE Deed wtth vendor,s Lim from the Jessups to the Alfords. 7 ' 'nrract one" meane ths I 17-50 acre tract of land located of san Augustino, Toxas, and that is more pffit"Jlty about soven miles west desoribed as Tmcr one in the Deed. cHARoE oFTtE couni 4n0 t r0/s00'd 68EZ SlZ gEffifiJ )EU-D rsto AlHnot tH|IsnDvHvs 9?:0[ s toz/?zr]o  QuesrloN No' eueston: tbat thev have ttfle ro an undtvided il#;,filfltflr^"ed one-hslf of the minerat eetate Iustructioni To establish title' the Alfords mu$ (1) prcv€ B rsgulsr*cilain of conveyances (2) estabrish zuperior titlc oui from the sovereim oi a eommon"*,ifi";'J"on eource, gry:: riie rttle by prror poesession couplod rimitations, or (4) pm"; *fth;;;f .tl was nor abandoned. nrcvail onlv on the zuperiority of their tifle, ff"#ff{:ffi not on rhe wearness of You are instructed that it is undisputed thet prior to execr.ding the Deed, undivided one-half of the minemls the Jessups owned an boueath fr;-il. Thr q"U;;""#il whether the Deed reeervsd ot *nuuyra tq" .mr*r irrt"r.ri If it reser;; for you to decids is f,newor'T'tro," and if it conveyed tne dinorar irG;;t;wor ..yes-r, the minerar r"t'; You are firrther instruct'd that Erfiibit A was incorporated into tlre Dced. You aro ftrther instructed that a desd will pass all of the estqte the tlme of the conveyance rylantr udess oumcd by the grautor at . couveyed. there erc ,rru*itioos or exceptions whiclr reduce the estate Anrwer: Ao,\ Gr i'Yos* or,*o.,, j0-* GIARoE oF THB count 5/t0 I r0r900'd 68gZ S/U gEd)fiJ x3ull Isto AIHn0t 3t{tlsntvHvs 9?:0t s t0zJ?z/?0  QUESTION No, 2 "No' to Question No. l, then anewor this question. otherwiso f;'::$ff**"d do not answor rhi' Question: be rerom,ed euch that the rosorvation ffi#f-t'#tdJffiTrffitlr"#J"tJjfd orminersis Instruction: To be ontitled to a reforrnation of tle Deed, tho Alfords must provs thnt (r) there was agroourent beforsthe Deed was an writtery and-(4il; wqs amutual mistake, original agreopen! in made sfterths ryduetug the agrecment to uniting tlrat to d;;- ;rt rJioc,t the agreemont the parties to the Deedi !*J of You arE iffkuct€d that to prov6 a ltrn-utual migtake," the {Ifotds ml{ prove (l)a mistake of fact, .9/rf;*d$#allv bv tno fanies to the nr"a, cuuoa *r,r.hfi*i.li; -d;, tho subject matte,r You are firrther instrustsd tbat a *uT*ty deed will pass all of the oshte owned by the grantor ff"ff:ai the convevance unless tk;;;;;;.;fi; or orcoprioru which reduce the ostate at Arrswer: nn Answer "Yss".or'\{o.. *l! L _ CltARoBoFTlcCouRT 6tr0 t ro//oo'd 6sgz s/z gcffiffJ x3u'D rst0 AHn0t tH|IsngvHvs 9f:0[ s toz/?zr!0  QUESTTON NO. 3 "Yos" to Quesdon No. 2, then fllHffi#:"d auswer thie quostion. orherwise do not answer Quostion:: Have ths Arfords provod that they euiercised due diligence in reviewing the Deed? Instructlon: You are inst'cte'd that ths standard of diligenee in rcviewiqg the Deed is that djrigecrse ordinary prudent lr.rson would havous.a udl thr il;;;rir"ilar oircumetsnoes. sn Anrwerl Answer *yes' or,No.r,_lI_ cHer,aeorrfi couRT- 7n0 r r0r800'd 68EZ $/Z gEffiffJ) x3u-D ISt0 A${nol SilrsnDvHvs 9}:0[ s r0z/fzrFo  QIJBSTIONNO.4 "Ye'" to Question f;tilltrtr-d 'qo' 3, then answer this question. othervuise do not a'swer Quesflonl By what dan did the Alfods discover, lave discovered by exercieing reasonable aud diligonce, the reservation *ili; :irh:"ld ror rract o", r" g*rrrtit A care "f to the Deed? Instructlons You ane instrrrcted tlrat the etandard of diligenrce in raviewing the Deed is that dlrigence an ordinary pnrdentperson would nuu. u."a ffilffi ilir";"J*rar circumshue,ss. Angwer: Answer byinserting a specificn monh, day and yesr. _ . CT{ARoE oFII{8 coI.,RT vl0 r t0/600'd 68EZ SlZ 980()ffJ) IIU'D lst0 A$no) 3H[sngvHvs 9?:0t s toe/?zt?o  REQUTSTED QtrEsTroN NO. 5 HnffiH'iil#il#*lr*:1il:' t or "Yes" to Question No. 2, then answsr this question. Queetlon: whst sum of money' if gy, if paid rcy Alfods for the damages, if any, tn*tlttur*aT -oash, woula raifland reasonnbly compe,nsatc ths m* oe roin#, bensath Tragt olsbelng leased? fnstruction: You shatl considsr only.the difibrcnce, il *y, botween the ruyalty the Alfords received and the ;HH#,*#;H:f#rHffiru:Jmitn"l,*"i,l,r,,r.n;r,m.ilil;;titreroone. Do not add any amount for lntsest on damages, if any, Angwer: Axswerin doilars and cents, if any,. $. cnARcE 0F THB couni 9n0 . I toro to'd 6Btz s/z ggd)ffJ) xtu'E Isto AIHnol SH|ISnDVHVS 9?:0t s t0zrlz/Fo  C\t*re-qry++ VERDICT CERTFICATE If the verdict is unanimoru, t'e prssidingj*r,or should sign below. Preslding Juror Ifthe verdict ie not unanimo's, then the deciding jruon shourd sign berow. tr{ffi-' ffiH,#J pyurS/rtuTf,fiii cuenoeoFnrgdti tOtr0 t I0/1 t0'd eE$ffJ 68EZ S/Z x3u-lt Istc AIHn0) 3H|lsntvHvs 9?:0 t s toz/lz/Fo  No. cv-i2_-e344 '*ffiJi?ffi tri on,,{tffi*, dy;i sY* :#ffiS ALFORD AND MARY LOU ! IN TFIE DISTRICI-'OUO4Z:'-:=** Plaintiffs, $ $ v.! $ 1ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ROBERT THOMAS T4CKEITHEN, g EOG RESOURCES,II{C. AND ' * CENTRAL TEXAS LAND SER'ICES Defendants. d $ SAru AUGUSTINE COUNTY, TEXAS JUDGMENT A trial in this cause was held on Viay 6 and7,2014. Alford ancl Mary Lou Alforcl, Plaintiffs herein, ro, triulh*les appeared and announced readv o.r.,o*,13;:'.Jf,r,n i"o:rffi;T#;*i anci centrai rexas La'd Services, A jury was dr-rly acceptecl, impaneled, and sworn. The jury retumed argument, ancl trre courr's inrt.u.tionr, its verdict after. frli}.t,j|! iljilLli; uno ur", ,..i.iri"g any speciar Plaintiffs' Claims with respect to the cause of action.for Trespass to 1ry fitre asserted by plaintiffs charres Alford and Mary Lou Alford against Def'enclant itou.rt iho*u, McKeithen, the jury finds in charres arr",a ancr Marv r"u ffiT"Ktrti fffffili,:ijJ'"intiffs air",d shau rAKE with respect to the cause of action fo' Reformation of a Deed assefied by piaintifl.s charles Alford and Mary Lou Alford against ttei-enclanf Robert rnomu, HaiK.i,h.n, the jury *Hitlirfti|fiilfl:ff:f;11,:na-piarntins cna'res alrord and M".t i;;;rrord shari rArr with.espect to the cause of actio' for Declaratory Judgment asserted by plaintiffs charles Alford a'd Mary Lou alfo'cl -rvicKeithen, against Defendants Roberi rrro,nu, Resources' Inc' and central Texas EoG Lano sirui9.9, in favor Plaintiffs charles Alford and Mary r,ou 1L.:w'nno, r"lo Defendants, and attor,t shall TAKBNO,THINIG by"iway of such claim. Any relief not expressly granted on Plaintiff's' McKeithen' EoG Resources, in-c. and claims against l)efendants Robert Thomas central 'fexas t-ana s.ruices is nil]igo. disposes of ail causes of action which we'.e asserted or could have been This order asserted in this lawsuit. Judgment CHARLES ALFORD itND MARy LOU ALFORD y. ROBER t. T HOMAS A4CKE: EoG RESIURCES /NC |HEN, AND cENTRAL rtns teiirTtnncts Page I  Any reiiel'not expressly granted on Defendants EoG Resources, Inc.,s and central Land services's claims against i)efendant rexas Robert 'fhornas McKeithen is npxtgo. disposes of all car-rses of action '''^"hich';iere This order asseitecl or courd have bee..rr-rul in rhis iaws'it. Costs of Co_urt Costs are hereby taxed against pjaintiffs. postiudgment Interest ir is furlher OI{DERED, ADJUDGED and DECREE,D accr'e on the arnounts awarded hereinabove that nostjr-idgrnenl nterest sliall at thc rate ol. 10% per annum from the date judgment is signed until paid. this Enforcement of Judgment IT IS ORDERED that any parly in favor of whom enforce this judgment through abstiact, .judgment is awarded is entitled to execution and any other process necessary. Relief Not Granted This judgment finally clisposes of all parties and ail claims and is appealable. SIGNED on _5le"g ,2014. APPROVED AS TO FORtvt: Attorney for Defendant Roberl Thomas McKeithen 1 17 Nolth Street, Suite 2 Nacogdoches, Texas 7 5961 Tel. (936) 564-9000 Fax, (936) 715-6022 Email: noelcooper@noelcooper.c0m CHARLES ALFORD AND MAT?Y ],OL] ALFORD Y, ROBERI I'HOMAS MCKEIT'HEN, EOC RESOURCES, INC AND CENTRAL TEXAS LAND SERrCI:S Page 2 Tom Rorie Attonrey fot'Cha-rles Alford and Mary Lou Alford Attorney at Law 210 North Street Nacogdoches, Texas 7 5961 Tel: (936) s59-1 I 88 Fax: (936) 559-0099 Jason R. Mills Attorney for EoG Resources, Inc. and centrai 'lexas Land Services Freeman Mills PC 110 N, College, Suite 1400 Tyler, Texas 15102 Tel: (903) 592-7755 Fax: (903) 592-1187 Judgrnent cHARLES ALF)RD AND MARI'Lou ALFoRD I/. RoRER'rI-HotvtA,s L./cKLrrHEN, EOC RESOURCEE /NC, AND CENTRAL TEXAS I,AND S!]?,C6S  NO. Cv"12 _9344 CHARLES and MARY LOU ALFORD, plaintiffs $ n'r THE DISTRTCT COURT VS, ROBERT THOMAS McKEITHEN, OF EOG RESOURCES, fNC., ' and CENTML TEXAS LAND SiRViCES, Defendants SAN AUGUSTINE COI-NTY, TEXAS FILED TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Now coME' CHARLES ALFORD and MARY Lou ALFORD, hereilrafter refened to as "Plaintiffs"' and m.ve the corut to grant a ne\4r trial in this case, showing as foilows: 1. The court signed a Judgrnent in this case on May 23,2014. Thatjudgrnont disposes of ail issues in the qase, and decrees that plainriffs take nothing by way of their suit. 2, A new trial should be granted for the reason that the triai court ened in holding that the language regarding a reservation of minerals found in the attached Exhibit ,,A,, to the warranty Deed fncm Jack Jessup and Annie Elizabeth Jessup to charles Alford and Mary Lou Alford, dated April 25' 2003 ("warranry Deed'), is incorporated into thai deed and effective as a part thereof, 3. The wan'anty Deed expressly states that it incorporates Exhibit .,A,, f.r the sole purpose of Page l Alford v McKeithcn et al Mtn New Trial eoA* n)F rnAl I r.|ir. I EnE F t, hF6/w $  providing a metes and bounds d.escription for location of the pr.peily on the ground. Any other language included on Exhibit "A" for any other puryose in addition to that necessary to provide a metes and bounds des*iption is surplusage and shourd be disregarded. 4. By finding that the entire contents of Exhibit "A" to the wananty Deed the court violated the basic rure of contract construction that the ranguage used by the pafties t0 an aseement or conveyance is to be given the effect intended by the parties as srrown by the dooument itself, 5, The court should new triai and rule that the lang,age $ant a in Exhibit ,0A,, attached to the warranly Deed that refers to a rese.ation ofminerals is disregarded and that no mineral reservation was effective' The court should set the case for trial on plaintiffs, claims for damages and aftomey, s fees. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the court grant a new trial, enter an irrteriocutory judgment that no minerai reservation was made in the wafianty Deed, and set the case for triai on Piaintiffs' claims for damages and aftot'ney's fees; Plaintiffs fiuther seek such other rerief as thev may be entitled to receive, either in law or in equity, Page 2 Alford v McKcithen et al Mtn NewTrial trfln,7nn"l eoe7 c t, oFcrvr. n  Respectfully submitted. State Bar No. 1723g000 210 Norrh Street Nacogdoches, TX ,/|196l (e36) 5s9-1 188 FAX (e36) ss9_00ee ATTOR,NEY F'OR, FLAINTIFFS foregoing document has M-#'#y#ifitT:flo-tj,fe been served on opposins counser this Mr, Jason R, Mills Mr, Graham I(. Simms Fleeman Miils pC Facsirnite (903) SgZ_7 7 87 Mr'. Noel D. Cooper Law Offices of Noel D. Cooper Facsimiie (936) 7 tS-6022 Mr. Bitl McWhorter Bill McWhorter & Associates Facsimile (936) 564_645 s Page 3 Alford v McKeithen et al Mtn New Trial cflnren11. J Efitr' F l, AF6/w rl  ffdn.'. -ey'/A,. 'U t!/t, .w(7 ""4, lol'{ "{} ^ N0. cv-12-9344 CTIARLES AI,F'OI{S .Al\D MAR.Y LOIJ $ IN THE DISTRICT COURT .{LFORI} ii Flaintiffs, 6 : v' s $ I crF R.OBER.T TFIOIV{AS N4CKEtrTHEN, $ EOG RESOUR.CES, iNC. AND 6 CENTRAI, TtrXAS I-AND SER.VICES 6 Defendants. $ sary.aLIGUSTINE couNTy, TEXAS OR.DER DENYING on August 22,2a14, the Courl considered the Plaintiffs'Motion for New Trial. and the respollse thereto, and after Lrearing the arguments the Cour:t finds that the Motion fbr New Trial should be []ENIEI]. Sigrled on JUDGE PRE$--Iq.ING