Royalty and Royalty Interests: Assignments

摘要

Boldrick Partners d/b/a/ Statewide Minerals offers to sell four lots of royalty and overriding royalty interests at auction. Moon is the successful bidder on three lots while Dwight Snell & Associates acquires the fourth. Statewide executes assignments to the winning bidders on June 10, 1996. A correction assignment is later executed that changes some of the language in the granting clause and makes the assignments effective June 1, 1996. This dispute arises because the parties dispute whether two wells that are not listed on the Exhibit A attachments to the assignments but are located on lands that were included in the assignment were conveyed to the assignee. Both parties submit extrinsic evidence to the trial court as to the reasons why the additional language was added to the original assignment deeds. The trial court holds, as a matter of law, that neither of the wells were conveyed by virtue of the amended assignment instruments. Held: reversed and rendered in part, reversed and remanded in part. Only if the assignments are . ambiguous should the admission of extrinsic evidence be allowed to interpret them. The court applies some canons of construction to determine if the instrument is ambiguous but then adds that canons of construction should only influence a court's decision if the instrument is deemed to be ambiguous. In this ?, case, the instrument is not ambiguous and Statewide's proffered interpretation would render the language added to the original assignment deed meaningless. Thus the assignment deeds conveyed fractional royalty interests in the two disputed wells because they were clearly located on properties covered by the deeds. The case is remanded solely on the issue of the award of attorney's fees. In a motion for rehearing the court states that it did not look to extrinsic evidence in reaching its conclusion that the deeds are unambiguous and that one of the wells is located on lands otherwise described in the deed.