首页> 外文期刊>Oil and Gas Reporter >Mineral Deeds: Reformation; Mutual Mistake of Fact
【24h】

Mineral Deeds: Reformation; Mutual Mistake of Fact

机译:矿物契约:改革;事实相互误解

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

On August 26, 2004, Powell Berry, as attorney-in-fact for "Hazel Berry, et al," enters into a contract to sell a tract of land in Texas to Cynthia Gail, with a reservation of all minerals, royalties, and timber interests in the land. On September 1, 2004, Powell Berry executes a warranty deed to Gail, on behalf of Hazel Berry, Evelyn Mebane, and Bernadine Wilson, that does not contain a mineral reservation. Following Mebane's death in 2006, David Cotton, the attorney for the executrix of her estate, discovers that the warranty deed to Gail does not contain the sales contract's mineral reservation. Cotton contacts Thomas W. Choate, who prepared the sales contract and warranty deed. Choate states that when he prepared the warranty deed, he used the title insurance commitment's legal description of the property, which did not contain the mineral reservation. Because he did not compare the deed and the sales contract, he did not learn of the mistake until Cotton contacts him. Cotton informs Gail of the mistake, but she refuses to revise the title. Berry, Wilson, and Mebane's executrix (Plaintiffs) then sue Gail for reformation of the deed for mutual mistake. The trial court grants Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Gail appeals, arguing the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs did not establish that the omission of the mineral reservation from the deed was the result of mutual mistake. Held: affirmed.
机译:2004年8月26日,鲍威尔·贝瑞(Powell Berry)作为“榛树贝瑞(Hazel Berry,et al)”的实际律师,签订了一份合同,将德克萨斯州的一块土地出售给辛西娅·盖尔(Cynthia Gail),保留了所有矿产,特许权使用费和土地上的木材利益。 2004年9月1日,鲍威尔·贝瑞(Powell Berry)代表榛子(Hazel Berry),伊芙琳·梅班(Evelyn Mebane)和伯纳丁·威尔逊(Bernadine Wilson)向盖尔(Gail)签了一份不包含矿产保留权的保证契据。梅班(Mebane)于2006年去世后,其财产执行权律师大卫·科顿(David Cotton)发现,盖尔(Gail)的保证书不包含销售合同的矿物保留。棉花与托马斯·W·乔特(Thomas W. Choate)联系,后者准备了销售合同和保修单。 Choate指出,当他准备保修契约时,他使用了产权保险承诺对财产的法律描述,其中不包含矿产保留。因为他没有比较契约和销售合同,所以直到Cotton与他联系之前,他才知道错误。棉花将错误告知盖尔,但她拒绝修改标题。贝里,威尔逊和梅班娜的执行者(原告人)随后起诉盖尔,要求对彼此的错误行为进行改革。初审法院批准原告的动议,以进行简易判决。盖尔(Gail)提起上诉,认为原告法院没有做出对原告有利的简易判决,因为原告没有证明从契据中遗漏了矿物保留是相互错误的结果。举行:肯定。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号