Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Texas Supreme Court weighs whether a parenthetical creates a fixed 1 1/28 royalty in Clifton v. Johnson
Summary
At oral argument in Clifton v. Johnson, the Texas Supreme Court heard competing views about whether a deed’s parenthetical calculation establishes a fixed 1 1/28 royalty interest or instead reflects a floating royalty tied to the 1/8 presumption. Counsel disputed whether the Van Dyke "presumed grant" doctrine applies and whether remand is needed for additional factual development.
The Texas Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral argument in Clifton v. Johnson, a dispute over whether a deed’s parenthetical calculation establishes a fixed 1 1/28 royalty interest or should be read as a floating fraction informed by the court’s Van Dyke "presumed grant" presumption.
Petitioners’ counsel told the court the instrument is clear on its face. "The unambiguous royalty deed in this case uses language this court has never had the opportunity to construe before," counsel said, arguing the parenthetical merely explains the arithmetic and the deed repeatedly references a royalty interest. Counsel pointed to the deed’s repeated use of "royalty," including a warranty clause, and the long, undisputed course of payments…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
