No. 06-14-00100-CV

_________________________ IN THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

AT TEXARKANA

__________________________ MARK J. MUELLER, Appellant

V. JAMES H. DAVIS, Individually, and JAMES H. DAVIS D/B/A J. D. MINERALS, and JDMI, LLC., Appellee

____________________________ Appealed from the 71st District Court of Harrison County, Texas

_____________________________ APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF AND RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

_____________________________________________________________________________ BOB WHITEHURST State Bar No. 21358100 whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com WHITEHURST & WHITEHURST 5380 Old Bullard Road, Suite 600-363 Tyler, Texas 75703 (903) 593-5588 (214) 853-9382 (facsimile) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
ASSIGNED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ACCEPTED 06-14-00100-CV SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 8/28/2015 6:52:47 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKii I DENTI TY OF PARTI ES AND COUNSEL In acc ordanc e with Rule 38.1(a) of the TEX AS RUL ES OF APPEL L ATE PROCEDURE, Appellant, Mark J. Mueller provides the f ollowing list of all par

ties, and the name s and

a dd re sse s o f a ll c ouns e l: Appellant/Plaintiff: Mark J. Mueller Couns e l f or Ap pe lla nt: B ob Whit e hurs t State Ba r I .D. # 21358100 Whit e hurs t & Whit e hurs t 5380 Old Bullar d Road, Suite 600-363 Tyler, Te x as 75703 Telephone : (903) 593-5588 Fa csimile: (903) 297-1992 Appellee /Defe ndant: J ames H. D avis, Individually , and James H. Da vis d/b /a J.D. Min e ra l and

JDMI , L L C. Counsel for Appe llee: Doug las D. McL allen State Ba r I .D. # 00788025 1001 Third Street, Ste. 1 Corpus Christi, Tex as 78404 Telephone : (361) 884-4981 Fa csimile: (361) 884-1286iii TA BLE O F CO NT EN TS I de nti ty of Part ie s and

Couns e l..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ii Ta ble of Conte nts .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iii Index of Authorities.................................................................................................... v State me nt o f t

he Ca se .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . vii State of Ar g ume nt. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. vii I ssues Presente d in this R eply Br ief............................................................................ 1 I ssue No. 1: The c onveyance s that are the subject of this appe al ar e ambi g uo us . I ssue No. 2: The c onveyance s that are subject of this appe al ar e tainted by fra ud in the public rec ord. I ssu e No . 3 : T he Mo tio n f or Sanc tio ns fi le d b y

Ap pe lle e is f

ri vo lou s. Statement of F acts...................................................................................................... 1 Summary of the Ar g ument......................................................................................... 1 Argument and Authorities.......................................................................................... 2 1. Th e c onve y anc e s are ambi g uo us ba se d o n th e fa c t th at it is i mpo ssi ble t o h arm o n i z e t h e p ro v i s i o n s an d gi v e e ff ec tt o al l o f t h e c o n v ey an ce s / co n tra ct 's clause s, and as suc h the conve y ance /contrac t is susceptible to more than one re asonable interpre tation and is ambig uous............................................ 2 2. The c onveyance s in the public rec ords ar e base d on fra ud, which vitiates whateve r it touches ........................................................................................ 6 3. The sanc tions mot ion filed by Appellee is without m erit, base d on the fa ct that from the view

point of the advoc ate f

iling the a ppeal he had re asonable g rounds to believe the judgme nt could be re verse d....................................... 14 Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 19iv

Pray er.......................................................................................................................... 19 Certificate of Compliance........................................................................................... 20 Certificate of Servic e.................................................................................................. 20v IN DE X O F AU THORITI ES CA SES Angelou v. African O verse as Union , 33 S.W .3d 269 (Tex. App.--Houston [14t h Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Borderlon v. Pe ck, 661 S.W .2d 907, 909 (Tex. 1983). BP AM Prod . Co . v . M ar sh all , 342 S.W .3d 59 (Tex. 2011). Cok e r v . Co k e r, 650 S.W .2d 391 (Tex. 1983). Cosgrove v. Cade , No. 14-0346 June 26, 2015. D Design Holdings, L.P. v. MM P Corp., 339 S.W .3d 195 (Tex. App.-- Dallas 2011, no pe t.) Do rse tt v . Cros s, 106 S.W .3d 213 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied)
. Es tate of S

ton e c iph e r v . E

sta teof B utt

s, 591 S.W .2d 806 (Tex. 1979). Etan Indus., Inc. v . Lehmann , 359 S.W .3d 620 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam). Ex x on Cor p. v . E me ra ld O il, 348 S.W .3d 194 (Tex. 2011). Frost Nat'l Bank v. L &F Distribs., L td., 165 S.W .3d 310 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam). Gard v. Bande ra Cnty. Appraisal Dist ., 293 S.W .3d 613 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2009, no pet.). Glassman v. Good-

friend, 34 7 S. W.3 d 7 72 (T e x. Ap p. -- Ho us ton [14t h Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (en ba nc). Ha c k be rry Cre e k Cou ntr yClu b, In c . v . H

ac k be rry Cre e k Ho meOw ne rs Ass'n, 205 S.W .3d 46 (Tex. App.--Da llas 2006, pet. denied)
. Ho ok s v . S am so n Lo neSta r, Ltd

., P’ Sh ip 457 S.W . 3d 52 (Tex. 2015). 15
7 7 4 6 4 4, 6
7 7 6-7 2, 3 14, 15
15
4 2, 6, 7vi

Innovatev. Tech. Solutions, L.P. v. Y oungsoft, Inc., 4 1 8 S. W. 3 d 1 4 8 ( T e x. App.--D allas 2013, no pet.). J .M . D av ids on , I

nc . v . W e bs te r, 128 S.W .3d 223 (Tex. 2003). Lopez v. Muñoz, Hoc kem a &Ree d, L.L.P., 22 S.W .3d 857 (Tex. 2000). Reilly v. Range rs Mgmt., Inc. , 727 S.W .2d 527 (Tex. 1987). Remuda O il Co. v. W

ilson , 264 S.W .2d 192 (Tex. Civ. App.-- Galve ston 1954, writ ref

’d n.r.e .). Ru e be c k v . H un t, 176 S.W .2d 738 (Tex. 1943). Tate v. E.I. Dupont deNemours &Co. , 954 S.W .2d 872 (Tex. App.-- Houston [14t h Dist.] 1997, no pet.). RU LES Black’ s Law Dictionar

y 480 (9 ed. 2009).

th 4
4-5 2 3-4 6
6 15

10vii No . 0 6- 14 -0 01 00 -C V IN T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A LS SI XTH APPEL L ATE DI STRI CT OF TEX AS

AT TEXA RKANA MARK J . MUEL L ER Appellant
v. J AMES H. DAVI S, I ndividually , J AMES H. DAVI S D/B/A J.D. MI NERAL S AND J DMI , L L C. Appellee ON APPEALFROM TH E 7 1 JUDI CIAL

DI STR I CT C OU RT ST HARRI SON COUNTY, TEX AS AP P ELL ANT’S REP LY BRIEF AN D RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS TO TH E H ON OR

AB L E JUST I CES OF TH E SIXT H C OU RT O F APP EA L S: Appellant, Mar

k J . Mueller f

iles this R eply

Br ief a nd Response to Motion for Sanctions of Ap pe lla nt. In th is b ri e f, Ap pe lla

nt w ill be re fe rr e d to a s App e lla nt. Ap pe lle e Jame s H . D avis , individually , J ames H. D avis d/b/a J .D. Minera ls and J DMI , L L C will be refe rre d to as Appellee
. The 2015 Clerk’ s Record w ill be refe renc ed as “ (CL R”), beingthe Clerk’s Rec ord Volume 1, Supplemental 2(A). STA TEM EN T OF THE C ASE Ap pe lla nt’ s “ State me nt o f t

he Ca se ” pr ov ide d in

Ap pe lla nt’ s B ri e f p ro pe rl y stated the c ase: that a

ppellant broug ht the action ag ainst the appe llee in a suit to quiet titl e. STATE MENT ON ORAL ARG UMENT This court has pr eviously decide d that oral a

rgument is nece ssary

in this case.A

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief P age 1 ISSU ES P RE SEN TED Issue No. 1 : T he c onve y anc e s th at are the su bje c t of thi s a pp e a l are ambi g uo us . Issue No. 2: Th e c onve y anc e s th at are su bje c t of thi s a pp e a l are ta int e d b y

fr a ud in t he pu bli c rec ord. Issue No. 3 : T he Mo tio n f or Sanc tio ns fi le d b y

Ap pe lle e is f

ri vo lou s. STA TEM EN T OF F AC TS Appellant’s “ Statement of the F acts” provided in Appe llant’s Br ief prope rly stated the fac ts of the ca se. In para g raph 23 of

its brief Appe llee stated “ Appellee s acquire d interests fr om Mill s and Cope via conve y ance s in 1991. (CR 1826-1827 and CR 1828-1829)” Appe llee fa iled to state the
nume ro us oth e r f

a c ts that r e fl e c t th at App e lle e its e lf ha s in its po sse ssi on

and c on tr ol d oc ume nts substantiating that Appe llee had not a cquire d the intere sts from Mills and Cope in 1991. SUMMAR

Y OF THE ARGUM ENT The doc uments from Cope and Mills to Appellee a re a mbiguous ba sed on the fa ct the documents ca

n not be re ad to har

moniz e all the pr ovisions in t he docume nts. Appellee pr epar ed a docume nt which allotted only one sele ct sentenc e (in small print), to conve y title to Appellee. Meanwhile, all the other pr ovisions and lang uag e (both in standar d and small print) located in the document did not convey title to Appellee. Appe llee has c hosen to disreg ard e ntire phra ses in the do c ume nt t

hat in dic ate that it

wa s n ot t he int e nt o f C op e and

Mil ls t o c onve y

a ll the int e re st i n Har rison County , Texas to Appellee. Appe llee has c hosen to ig nore the obvious and log ical languag e of the documents in favor of an unde rhande d and fr audulent interpr etation.A

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief P age 2 The public re cords through which Appe llee cla ims ti tle, are based on the fra udulent actions of the A

ppellee. F raud vitiates whatever it touches. Appellee failed to disclose a g reat de a l of inf or matio n to Ap pe lla

nt a nd oth e rs wh e n App e lle e no tif ie d App e lla

nt a nd oth e rs of its sudden cla im to all the interests of Cope and Mills in Harr ison County , Texas. Appellant pr e pa re d th e do c ume nts to s uc h a n e xtent th at th e fr a

ud wa s n ot d isc ov e re d f

or y e ars . The Motion for Sanc tions filed by Appellee is without m erit. Not only Appellant, but
many oth e r l awye rs , c omp anie s, and landme n, have pa id m on e y to C op e and

Mil ls f or the ir min e ra l inte re sts in H arr iso n Co un ty , T e xas. Th e su it t o d e te rm ine owne rs hip of sa id p ro pe rt

y is th e o n l y l e g a l w ay t o a s c e rt a i nw h o a c tu a l l y o w n s s a i d p r o p e rty. AR G UM EN T A ND AU THORITI ES

I. THE CONVEYANCES T HAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS AP P EAL ARE AMBIG UOUS Appellee contends that the doc uments from Cope and Mills to Appellee ( CL R at 18, Tab A, and CL R at 21, Tab B ) ar e unambiguous, and this court does not re ally need to look at the do c ume nts , to make a

de c isi on . T his is n ot t

ru e no r i s th e qu e sti on

that si mpl e . T e xas c ourt s
re c e ntl y a dd re sse d th e ne c e ssi ty

of e xami nin gthe int e nt o f t he pa rt ie s w he n inte rp re tin gc on tr a c ts in Hooks v . Samson Lone Star, Ltd., P’Ship 457 S.W . 3d 52 (Tex. 2015). In Hooks, at 63 , the court stated, In construingcontra cts, we must asc erta in and g ive ef fec t to the parties' intentions as expressed in the doc ument.” Lopez v. Muñoz, Hoc kem a &Ree d, L.L.P., 22 S.W .3d 857, 861 (Tex. 2000) We attempt to harmonize all contrac tual provisions by "anal y z in g the p rov is io ns wi th refere nce t o t he w ho le a greemen t. " F r o s t N a t' l Bank v . L & F Distribs., L td., 165 S.W .3d 310, 312 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam). The courts continue to hold that contr acts should be c onstrued “f rom a utilitarian standpoint bearingin mind the particular busine ss activity soug ht to be serve d,"A

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief P age 3 and, whe n possible and prope r, we avoid a " construction which is unre asonable , in equ it abl e, an d o pp res si ve. " Reilly v. Range rs Mgmt., Inc., 727 S.W .2d 527, 530 (Tex. 1987) In o the r w or ds , th e tr ia l c ourt sh ou ld c on sid e r t

he e nti re do c ume nt s o th at it may be a ble to de te rm ine the tr

ue int e nt o f t

he pa rt ie s. In th e c a se no w b e fo re the c ourt , th e Ap pe lle e is a sk ingthat th e c ourt to a c c e pt t

hat on ly the one pr ovision, located in small print in the lower half of the doc uments. Appellee states that
eac h document conta ins a specif ic survey descr iption clause, a “ Mother Hubba rd” or habendum
c l a u s e , an d a c o un ty w i d e g r an t i n g c l a u s e . ( S e e N o . 8 5 ) A pp e llee ha s a dm itt e d tha t this
c o n v e y a n c e d o e s n o t c o n t a i n a me t e s a n d b o u n d s d e s c r i p t i o n , a n d d o e s n o t c o n t a i n a v o l u me and pa ge re ferenc e to a priordocum ent t hat w as fil ed in t he C ounty Clerk’s offi ce of H a r r i s o n C o u n t y , T e x a s . ( C L R a t 8 4 5 , 8 5 1 , N o . 3 4 a n d N o . 3 5 , T a b C ) . As here tofore provided in Appe llant’s brief, that is in vi olation of the Statute of F rauds. Clea rly Mills and Cope could have interpre ted the spec ific surve y descr iption clause took prec edenc e over the county wide g rantingclause since it appe are d ear lier in the docume nt. I t cer tainly appea rs that
nume ro us oth e r l awye rs , c omp anie s, and landme n inte rp re te d th e c la us e that w ay , o r why

wo uld they have pa id money

for year s for e ither royalty pay ments, leases or

mineral c onveyance from Mills and Cope. (CL R 1732, 1733, 1735, Tab S) Acc eptingthis Mother Hubbard c lause a s controlling , rathe r than the nume rous other pr ece ding pr ovisions, flies in the face of established
case law. The court will consider the entire writing and then attempt to harmoniz e and g ive eff ect to all its terms by

analy zing the provisions with ref ere nce to the whole agree ment. Fros t Nat'l Bank, 16 5 S. W.3 d at 31 2. " No sin g le pr ov isi on take n a lon e wi ll b e g ive n c on tr oll inge ff e c t; rat her, all th e pro vi si on s m us t b e con si dere d wi th refere nce t o t he w ho le i ns tr um ent ." J.M.A

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief P age 4 Da v ids on , I

nc . v . W e bs te r, 128 S.W .3d 223, 229 (Tex. 2003). Additionally , words appe aring
ear lier in a c ontrac t ge nera lly have pr ece dence over later a ppear ing w ords. Do rse tt v . Cros s, 106 S.W. 3d 21 3, 22 0 ( Te x. Ap p. -- Ho us ton [1st Di st. ] 200 3, pe t. d e nie d) . O bv iou sly , th e re e xists a clea r question conc erningthe prope r interpr etation of the doc uments. As stated above , numerous other lawy ers, c ompanies, and la ndmen have interpre ted the cla use diffe rently

beca use they have made pa y ments to and executed other lease s or minera l conveyance with Mill s and Cope for y ear s after

the dates of

the documents in question. (CL R 1732, 1733, 1735, Tab S) I f aco urti s un ab l e t o h arm o n i z e t h e p ro v i s i o n s an d gi v e e ff ec tt o al l o f aco n tra ct 's
c la us e s, the c on tr a c t is su sc e pti ble to m or e tha n o ne re a so na

ble int e rp re tatio n a

nd is a mbi g uo us . D Design Holdings, L.P. v. MM P Corp., 339 S.W .3d 195, 201 (Tex. App.--Da llas 2011, no pet.). Hack berry Cree k Country Club, Inc. v. H ackbe rry Creek

Home O wners Ass'n, 205 S.W .3d 46, 56 (Tex. App.--Da llas 2006, pet. denied) Innovatev. Tech. Solutions, L.P. v. Y oungsoft, Inc., 418 S.W .3d 148, 151 (Tex. App.--Da llas 2013, no pet.) When a c ontrac t is ambiguous, g ranting summary judgme nt based on the c ontrac t is im proper . Cok e r v . Co k e r, 650 S.W .2d 391, 394 (Tex. 1983). Appellee does not and ha s never claimed the Mothe r Hubba rd or ha bendum clause s in the deeds c onvey ed any

thing to Appe llee. (See No. 77 and No. 84) I f that is indeed the c ase, a nd the ‘cove r all’ c lause is par

t of the Mother H ubbard of habendum c lause, then the clause conveyed nothing. The g rantinglanguag e that Appe llee re fer s to in No. 79, was ac tually part of the habendum c lause, No. 81. The Appe llee is claimingtitle through a clause that was a ctually

added to the ha

bendum clause . (See a ctual cla

use in document at (CL R at 18, Tab A, a nd CL R at 21, Tab B ) TheA

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief P age 5 su sp ic iou s n atur e of

thi s c la us e ind ic ate s a

n a dd e d n e e d to c are fu lly c on sid e r t

he do c ume nt a s a whole. F irst, the small font is used below to repr esent the a ctual font size in the documents, and wher e the c lause that Appe llee continually ref ers to, is ac tually

located.
The “ L an ds ” su bj ect t o th is d ee d a lso inc lud e allstri ps , gore s, road w ays, w at er bottoms an d ot her land s ad ja cent to or con ti guou s w it h t he lan ds speci fic ally descri bed ab ove an d owned or claim ed b y Gran tors. I f th e descrip ti on a bove pro ce ss incor

re ct in any

re spe ct o r do e s no t incl ude the se adjace nt or co ntigo us l ands, Granto r s hall , w ithout additional con sid eration s, exe cu te, ac kn ow le dge, an d d el iver to G ran tor, i ts su cc essors and assi gns, suc h i ns tru ment s as a re useful or ne ce s s ar y to co r r e ct th e de s cr ipt io n a nd e v ide nce s uchco r r e ct io n i n the ap pr o pr ia te pub l ic r e co r ds
. Gr ant o r he r e by c on ve ys t o Gr a n t ee a ll of t h e m i n er a l, ro ya lt y, a n d ov err i d i n g r oya lt y i n t er es town ed b y Gra n t ori n H a r r i s on C ou n t y, w he the r o r no t s am e is he r e in abo v e co r r e ct l y de s cr ibe d. This clause is quite diffic ult to read due to the font and print size. Second, this additional langua g e , is no t ty

pic a l f or a Mo the r H ub ba

rd c la us e . App e lle e ha s a dmi tte d th at J.D . M ine ra ls or its attorney s or re prese ntatives draf ted some of the te rms which make up the instruments, (Tab C, C lr 85 0, No . 2 7) , th at th e do c ume nts c on ta ins pr int that is a dif fe re nt s ize fo nt, (T a

b C, Clr 85 1, No . 3 0) , a

nd the do c ume nts we re pr e pa re d in the no rm a l c ours e of

bu sin e ss. (T a

b C, Clr 85 1, No . 3 3) In s pit e of

the unus ua l natur e of

the c la us e , d ue to i ts l oc atio n in

the do c ume nt, other pe ople involved in the oil and g as industry have c onsidered this ‘c over a ll’ clause a s part of the habe ndum/mother hubbard c lause, a s ref lected in r oy alty

pay ments, and lea ses and miner al conveyance s ref

err ed to above
. Appellee fails to addre ss the fac t that the documents also conta in the languag e “G rantor a g re e s to e xec ute any

su pp le me nta l in str

ume nt r e qu e ste d b y

Gr ante e fo r a

mor e c omp le te de sc ri pti on

of sa id l and . I f i t in de e d w a s th e int e nt o f t he or ig ina l g ra

nto rs (C op e and

Mil ls) to convey ever y thing they owned in the c ounty , then why was such a

clause in the document? The documents conta in lang uag e that appe llee does not re ly on its claim of all the intere st in Harrison County , whic h r a ise s th e qu e sti on a s to why

that la ngua g e wa s in

the do c ume nts in t

he fi rs t place ? These doc uments are clea rly ambig uous when the spe cific grantingclause does not convey any interest, and the habendum/mother hubba rd cla use does not conve y

any interest, and the on ly c la us e that do e s c onve y

any int e re st w a s p art

of the mot he r h ub ba rd c la us e . A s se t f

or thA

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief P age 6 in Do rse tt, the se c la

us e s sh ou ld h ave pr e c e de nc e ov e r l ate r a pp e ari ngc la

us e s, wh ic h a g a in i s ambig uous. Readingthe document in its entirety and with the agree ment to execute any supplemental instrument for a more c omplete desc ription certa inly indicates ther e wa s no intent on the par t of either pa

rty to convey

all interests in Har

rison County

to Appellee. The e x istence of

this contradictory

clause s confirms the ne cessity of interpr etingthe do c ume nt a s a

wh ole . T he dif

fe re nt c la us e s in the do c ume nts signe d b y Cop e and

Mil ls c e rt a inl y cannot be harmonized tog ether , and ar e thus ambiguous. On pag e 33 of its brief , Appellee cites the ca se stating , only

when a deed is subjec t to two differe nt rea sonable interpr etations should the court c onsider the c ircumstance s surroundingits ex ecution. Remuda O il Co. v. W ilson , 264 S.W .2d 192 (Tex. Civ. App.-- Galve ston 1954, writ ref’ d n.r.e.) That is exactly what Appe llant has done. II. THE C ON VE YA NC ES THA T A RE SUB JEC T OF THI S AP P EA L A RE TA IN TED BY F RAUD IN THE PUBLIC RECORD Ap pe lle e state s th at App e lla nt h a d n oti c e of

the do c ume nts be c a

us e the y we re on fi le in the re al prope rty

rec ords of Ha

rrison County , Texas, and cites the June 26, 2015 case of Cosgrove v. Cade, No. 14-0346. Ho we ve r, the c a se at ha nd is v a stl y dif fe re nt. F ir st, the c ir c ums tanc e s su rr ound ingthe e xec uti on

of the do c ume nts , whic h w e re fi le d in the public re cords, sig ned by Cope and Mills are ba sed on fr aud. The Texas Supreme Court
c on c lud e d th at w he re pu

bli c re c or ds are ta int e d b y fr a ud , th e y pr ov ide no c on c lus ive pr oo f t o establish a lac k of dilige nce in the disc overy of fr aud. The court in Hooks at 57 held: We have longheld that " fra ud preve nts the runningof the statute of limit ations until it is discovere d, or by the exercise of

rea sonable dilig ence might have been di sco vere d. " Ru e be c k

v . H un t, 1 7 6 S
. W
. 2 d

7 3 8 , 7 3 9 ( T e x . 1 9 4 3 )
. G e n e r a l l y, " [c]a us e s o f a c tio n a c c ru e and statut e s o f l imi tatio n b e g in t o r un wh e n f a c ts c ome in to ex is ten ce t hataut ho ri z e a cl aim antto seeka ju di cia l r eme dy ," Em e ra ld O il,A

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief P age 7 34 8 S. W.3 d at 20 2, but " a pe rs on c ann ot b e pe rm itt e d to avo id l ia bil ity fo r h is act io ns by

decei tf ul ly con ceal in g wron gdoi ng un ti l l im it ati on s h as r un ." S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W .2d 1, 6 (Tex. 1996). Be cause "f raud vitiates whatever

it touches," Borderlon v. Pe ck, 66 1 S. W.2 d 9 07 , 9 09 (T e x. 19 83 ), lim itatio ns do e s n ot s tart to ru n unti l th e fr a

ud is d isc ov e re d o r t

he e xer c ise of

re a so na ble dil ig e nc e wo uld discover it, Ma rsh all

, 342 S.W .3d at 69. Th e c ourt g oe s o n f ur the r a nd dis c us se s th e iss ue s o f “ wh e n w ou ld r e a so na ble dil ig e nc e le a d to the discover

y of the wr ong ? And who dec ides? ” Id. No rm a lly a qu e sti on of law, the a c c ru a l date fo r a c a us e of a c tio n h a s to be c on sid e re d w iththe e xer c ise of re a so na ble dil ig e nc e wh ic h is a issue of fa ct. See , Etan Indus., Inc. v . Lehmann, 35 9 S. W.3 d 6 20 , 6 23 (T e x. 20 11 ) (pe r c ur iam) and Es tate of S

ton e c iph e r v . E

sta teof B utt

s, 59 1 S. W.2 d 8 06 , 8 09 (T e x. 19 79 ). Ac c or din gto Hooks at 59 : Al tho ug h r e a so na

ble dil ig e nc e sh ou ld e xami ne re a dil y ava ila ble inf or matio n in the pu bli c rec ord, it may

stop at more re cent f

ilings with the Railroad Commission, without needing to double-che ck more rec ent filing s ag ainst ear lier filing s. This acc ords with our prior deci si on s. W e hav e hel d t hat"fraudvi ti ate s w hat ever itto uch es, " Borderlon, 661 S.W .2d at 909, in this case, the public r ecor d. In the matter at hand, the docume nts signed by Cope and Mills were not only tainted by

fra ud they wer e immersed in de ception by the Appellee . The Appe llee has a pattern of

dece ptive and fra udulent business prac tices. The f ollowing is fr om the business rec ord af fidavit from the Te x as Attorney Gene ral off

ice f iled in this case: (1) letter to Texas Attorney

Gene ral, statingin part “the se guy s were trying to tric k her into selling the rig hts. . . .” (CL R 1905) (2) c omplaint to the Tex as Attorney Gene ral, statingin part “. . . the re w as blatant fra udulent intent on the part of this compa ny . . . .” (CL R 1908). (3 ) l e tte r f

ro m ba nk vic e pr e sid e nt t o T e xas A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, s tatin gin p art

“
. . . th e fi rs t three appea

r to have offe red f

ar le ss than fair ma

rket va lue and the c onsideration for the last is unknown. . . .” (CL R 1911)A

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief P age 8 (4 ) l e tte r t o T e xas A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, s tatin gin p art

“
. . . J.D . M ine ra ls i s e ng a g ingin shameful, unsc rupulous, and per haps dec eptive tra de pra ctices.” (CL R 1912) (5 ) l e tte r t o App e lle e fr om a tto rn e y , s tatin gin p art

“
. . . D e sp ite y our f

ir m’ s f a ilure to ho no r t he dr a ft , your f

ir m to ok a c tio n to fi le and

re c or d th e Min e ra l and

Roya lty Convey ance in the rea l property rec ords of L aSalle County , Texas. . . ..” (CL R 1913) (6) letter to Appellee f

rom preside nt of National Assoc iation of Roy alty Owner s, stating in part “. . . the direc tors have me t an unanimously voted to terminate your member ship. . . .” (CL R 1916) (7) letter to Senator Dre w Nixon from J ames Staff ord, pre sident of the Association of Roy alty Owner s, complaining about J D Minera ls, stating in par t “. . . contains the statutory languag e on the instrument as r equire d, but the ty pe size of the body

of the conveyance has bee n reduc ed to a de g ree that anyone (pa rticularly the elder ly) with vision problems or a

limit ed under standing of leg al languag e would have a strug g le g etting throug h the whole thing .” (CL R 1917) (8) letter reg ardingJ D Minera ls, stating in par t “. . . this company

is trying ste al people’ s ro y a lty and min e ra ls a

nd the y are pr ayingon

pe op le e sp e c ia lly

the e lde rl y , s e nio r c iti zen s. . . . (CL R 1919) Additionally , the Appellee was sued by the State of Te x as in ca

use No. GV 003469, in the 53 rd J udicial District Court of Tra vis County , Texas. (CL R 304-326). In part, the c ase a lleg ed that Ap pe lle e vio late d th e De c e pti ve Tr a de Pr a c tic e Ac t. T he fo llo wi ngare e xce rp ts f ro m th is pe tit ion that w a s sw or

n to by an A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l: Section 5.1: Def endants' conduct dire ctly

and indirec tly

aff ects the pe ople of this state. F or the y e ar b e fo re May , 2 00 0 D e fe nd ants se nt o ut t he ir un so lic ite d ma ili ng s to a pp ro ximate ly

30 0, 00 0 p e rs on s w ho owne d mi ne ra l and /or ro y a lty int e re sts in Texas, and may

have obta ined up to 12,000 transfe rs of title in that time period a lon e a s a re su lt o f t

he ir de c e pti ve tr a de pr a c tic e s. Ev e n, tod ay De fe nd ants continue their unla

wful dec eptive tra de pra ctices a nd continue to profit as a

direc t result of their e nterprise ; Section 6.2: In a signif ic ant n umb e r o f c a se s D e fe nd ants ' fo rm of c onve y anc e de c e pti ve lyA

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief P age 9 failed to disclose the person wa s convey ing a ll mineral or royalty

interests owne d wi thi n th e c ounty

ins te a d o f j us t a

sp e c if ic a lly name d tr a c t. D e fe nd ants we re a lso awa re a numbe r o f p e rs on s b e lie ve d th e tr ans a c tio n w a s f or a le a se and no t a sa le of min e ra l or

ro y a lty int e re sts be c a

us e the e nc los e d d

ra ft wa s o ne -t

hir d to on e -h a lf of the a ppraised va lue on the tax rolls. S ome, but not all, of Def endants' unlawful acts include deliberately

dece ptive and misleadinglanguag e, the use of larg e print to sugg est one tra

nsaction and the use of small print languag e totally restatingthe ag ree . . . . Th e se pe rs on s w e re ind

uc e d to a c t up on

De fe nd ants ' de c e pti ve tr a de pr a c tic e s into transac tions tot ally

differ ent from what they wer e orig inally

led to believe.; Section 9.2: Af te r D e fe nd ants have fi le d th e se de c e pti ve ly ob ta ine d c onve y anc e s in the pu bli c rec ords of the c ounty

wher e the inter est is located, De fenda nts then sell the mineral or r oy alty

interests to innocent third par ties, use the intere sts as collatera l or sec urity

for loans f

rom their hometown ba

nk, or re tain the intere sts and pocket the mon e y

the se int e re sts g e ne ra

te . T hu s, De fe nd ants pr of it unla wf ull y fr om t he ir un lawf ul d e c e pti ve tr a de pr a c tic e s; Section 9.4: Def endants have known a ll along that their intent after the conve y ance was executed and r ecor ded wa s to issue a che ck to the owne r for a sig nificantly

lower amount. When this second offe r wa s not acc epted by an owne r, most often Def endants re fused to pay

the orig inal amount offe red or to convey

back the owne r' s mi ne ra l or

ro y a lty int e re st. Ins te a d, De fe nd ants c la im the y ho ld a va lid conveyance of the individual' s interest. De fenda nts disreg ard the obvious: The owner has neve r ac cepte d the Def endants' counter

offe r, and thus ther e is no c on sid e ratio n to su

pp or t th e c la ime d c onve y anc e . D e fe nd ants ' c la im o f a va lid conveyance is both a leg al and a fac tual misrepre sentation; Section 9.5: An o th er d ec ep t i v e p ra ct i ce De fe n d an t s u s e i n s ert s v agu e a n d m i s l ea d i n g l an gu age in the solicitation letter or the c onveyance which conf uses an owne r into believing the tr ans a c tio n invo lve s a le a se , a nd no t a sa le , o f m ine ra l or

ro y a lty int e re sts . Def endants' unsolicited letter to an owne r say s Defe ndants have become awa re of the int e re st the ind ivi du a l owns in t he c ounty , a

nd De fe nd ants are int e re ste d in addingthat interest to their inventory in the are a. The first clue the individual often" has that the intere st has been sold, a nd not leased, is upon re ceipt of a c ha ng e in o wn e rs hip no tic e fr om a pr op e rt y mana g e me nt f

ir m. F oll owup atte mpt sA

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief Pag e 10 to corre ct the mistake with the De fenda nts is met with either silence or derision. In e i th e r e v e n t , r ar e l y ha s any

owne r h a d th e int e re st c onve y e d b a c k. De fe nd ants ' ref usal to corr ect the mistake and to conve y back the owner ' s interest is with, total awa rene ss that many

owner s will make these ve ry mistakes; and, Section 9.6: Def endants' dece ptions continue with the use of e ven more vague and mislea ding l an g u a g e r e g ar d i n gth e a c tu a l m i n e r a l o r r o y a l ty i n t e r e s t s th e y

s e e k t o a c qu i r e . In many ins tanc e s, on e pa

rt of the c onve y anc e re fe rs wi th a larg e fo nt t o a

sp e c if ic trac t while another

part, usinga sig nificantly smaller font, re fer s to all interests the owne r h a s in

the e nti re c ounty . Ind ivi du a ls a re de c e ive d th e re by

int o c onve yinga ll o f th e i n t e r e s t s w i th i nth e c o un ty. Th e langua g e in t

he se a lle g atio ns su

pp or t App e lla nts ’ p os iti on

that no t on ly

we re the do c ume nts in question tainted in fraudule nt prac tices, but it also shows the intent to deceive
. This lawsuit broug ht by

the State of Te x as alleg ing D ece ptive Trade Practice s was settled. Th e jud g me nt t

hat App e lle e e nte re d into w iththe State of Te xas c on c e rn ingthe State ’s lawsuit alleg ing D ece ptive Trade Practice s, in part, provided ( CL R 160-171) “The court fur ther order s that plaintiff rec over f rom defe ndants, jointly

and seve rally , $250,000.00, as disg org ement pursuant to DTPA Sec. 17.47( a)” Di sg or ge m e ntis defined a s “the a ct of g iving up something (such a s profits illega lly

obtained) on de mand or by leg al compulsion.” Blac k ’s Law D ic tio na ry 480 (9 ed. 2009). A s part of this settlement the Appe llee, also a g ree d to a per manent injunction th wh ic h p ro hib its the Ap pe lle e fr om p e rf or min gc e rt a in a c ts: A. Repre senting , direc tly

or indirec tly , to the public that this J udg ment constitutes approva l by

plaintiff or this court of a ny of def endants' actions and business pr actice s ma de the ba sis of

thi s la ws uit ; B. Sendingunsolicited mail consisting of a letter that include s a dra ft and/or f orm of conveyance to any

individual(s) seekingto acquire or off eringto purcha se minera l and/or ro y a lty int e re sts fr om t

he owne rs : i. T hat f a ils to i de nti fy

wi th r e a so na

ble c e rt a int

y , o r i n th e same langua g e , in bo thA

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief Pag e 11 defe ndants' letter a nd in the conveyance to be sig ned by the owner (s), the miner al and /or ro y a lty int e re sts so ug ht t o b e a c qu ir e d, wh ic h id e nti fi c atio n ma y purp or t to c o v e r a l l o f th e o w n e r ' s o i l , g a s an d

m i n e r a l i n t e r e s t s i na

n am e d c o un ty ( " C o un tyWide Convey ance s") ; ii. That fails to conspicuously disclose in defe ndants' letter, in all bold ty pe fa ce, capitalized and usinga ty pe point siz e which is at least the same a s in the body of the le tte r, the fo llo wi ngfi ve state me nts (e xce pt t o th e e xtent to wh ic h a ny of the se statements must be altere d to comply with future c hang es in the law) ; (a) This letter is not an offe r to lease or to rene w a lea se of your minera l and /or ro y a lty int e re sts ; r athe r, thi s le tte r o ff e rs to b uy a ll o f t he int e re st( s) y ou own as identified in this letter a nd the enc losed form c onveyance ; (b) We will not pay

y ou for your minera l and/or royalty interest until we have r ece ived from you a prope rly executed conve y ance , and ver ified your title; (c ) We wi ll n ot r e c or d your c onve yanc e un til we have pa id you fo r i t; (d) B y executing a

nd deliveringthis inst rument you are selling a ll of y our mineral or r oy alty

interests in [Description of Proper ty Be ing Conve y ed, which may

be a County -Wide Conveyance ]; and, (e ) T he min e ra l and

/or ro y a lty int e re sts so ld i nc lud e s a ll unp a id a mou nts attributable to owne rs' interests bef ore, on a nd afte r the date of the conveyance and any

ordinary and customar

y covena nts of assura

nce g rantors a ssume with respec t to tit le; iii . T hat in c lud e s any

langua g e wi thi n th e c onve y anc e , o r s e e kin gby any se pa rate instrument, to appoint or constitute any g rante e or othe r per son to act as a g ent and/or attorney -in-fa ct on beha lf of owne rs for a ny purpose, limited or otherw ise; iv. That permits defe ndants to approve , acc ept or re ject the title desc ribed in the executed conve y ance more than thirty bankingday s from the date the orig inal writing an informe d consent fr om gr antor(s) extending the thirty day period for a longe r and spe cific pe riod of time. In this reg ard, a ny conveyance to gr antee s based in pa

rt upon an a g ree d time ext ension beyond thirty bankingday s must be paid by g rante es with a ne w demand ba nk draf t or che ck payable to g rantor;
v . T h atfa i l s t o i n cl u d e i nth e o ri gi n al b an k dra ftm ai l edt o gra n t o r( s ) l an gu age which states c onspicuously on the fa ce of

the bank dr aft: " On Dra

wee ' s approva l and ac cepta

nce of title to the interest descr ibed her ein, not later tha n 30 bankingA

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief Pag e 12 day s after

arr ival of this draft at collectingbank;" and vi. Th at in c lud e s in

a County -Wi de Conve y anc e langua g e wh ic h p ur po rt s to include all of the owner ' s future inter est and/or a fter- acquir ed title in and to such lands except as to those lands in which the owner ha d an intere st as of the date of the conve y ance . C. Paying a

n owner less than the dollar a

mount stated in defenda

nts' Conditional Dra ft acc ompanying the ir County -Wide Convey ance s even thoug h the owner may own a lesse r int e re st i n th e c ounty

tha n th at or ig ina lly

a ssume d b y

de fe nd ants . T his pr oh ibi tio n s ha ll not apply , howeve r, if def endants discove r that the owne r pre sently owns no oil, ga s or min e ra l inte re sts in t

he c ounty or if the pa rt ie s n e g oti ate a

dif fe re nt a mou nt. The a bove per manent injunction, which Appe llee sig ned, not only demonstrated the fra

udulent
and un e thi c a l bu sin e ss d e a lin g s w hic h App e lle e pr a c tic e d p ri or to t he laws uit

but it a lso specific ally

enumer ated the va

rious means Appe llee re peate dly used to dec eive miner al owner s. The prohibition listed under sec tion “i” desc ribes exactly what happe ned to the Mills and Cope. Appar ently , Appellee committed the same a cts ag ainst other people . I t is noteworthy that Ap pe lle e a dmi tte d in

his An sw e r t o A dmi ssi on s, No . 4 1 th at th e a g re e d ju dg me nt w a s in the be st interest of the public) (CL R 852) Appellee is now attempting to imply that he committed no fra ud; however , based a

bove listed prohibitions , it appear s he has r epeatedly committed simi lar a cts of fr aud. F raud is def ined as " tricker

y or dec eit," " intentional misreprese ntation, conce alment, or nondisclosure for the purp os e of

ind uc ingano the r i n r e lia

nc e up on it t o p art wi th s ome va lua

ble thi ngbe lon g ingto him," or " a fa lse repr esentation of a matter of fac t by words or c onduct . . . or by the conc ealment of what should have bee n disclosed that dec eives or is intende d to dece ive another so he shall ac t upon it to his leg al injury ." Webster ' s Third NewInternational Dictionary 904 (1986). A pe rson defr auds anothe r if she takes or withholds from a nother " some possession . . . by calc ulatedA

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief Pag e 13 mi ss tat eme ntor p erve rsi on of t rut h, tr ick ery , o r ot her d ecept io n. " Id. at 59 3; Margrave s v. State, 34 S.W .3d 912, 923 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (J ohnson, J ., concur ring ) It cer

tainly appea rs that Appellee attempted to dec eive a nd/or trick Appe llant and others in its letter of F ebrua ry 23, 2 0 1 1 , w h e ni ts t at e d

th ati to w n e d

1 0 0 % o f a l l C o p e an d

M i l l s i n t e r e s ti nH ar

r i s o nC o un ty, Te xas, wh e n App e lle e fa ile d a lso to i nf or m App e lla

nt a nd oth e rs of the oth e r d oc ume nts in i ts p o s s es s i o nth atre fl ec t edth e f o l l o wi n g: (1) the $235.00 dr aft to Ms. Cope was f or var ious acre s out the G.W. P etty Survey et al, not ever y thing in Ha

rrison County , Texas, (CL R 1133); (2) the $55.00 dr aft to Ms. Mills was for var ious acre s out the G.W. P etty Survey et al, not ever y thing in Ha

rrison County , Texas, (CL R 1207); (3) the mone y

order to Mr. Mills for $55.00 was for consideration for a one y ear primary term Roy alty Convey ance , (CL R 1207); (4) letter to Ms. Cope dated June 16, 2005, withdrawingoffe r, pre viously sold interest to another party , (CL R 358); (5) attempted on November 21, 2005 to purcha se minera l interest from Ms. Cope, (CL R 359); ( 6 ) l e t t e r t o M r . M i l l s , N o v e mb e r

2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , ar e i nth e p r o c e s s o f p ur c h a s i n gy o ur

i n t e r e s t , ( C LR 364); (7) obtainingpermission from Ms. Cope to obtain information about her minerals, September

15, 2008, (CL R 361); (8) letter to Ms. Cope, October 31, 2008, w ithdraw off er, sold intere st prior to date. (CL R 1129); (9 ) m e mo d ate d July

19 , 2 01 1, do e sn ’t

re a lly matte r b e c a

us e sh e so ld a ll h e r i nte re st a lr e a dy to another company , (CL R 363); and,A

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief Pag e 14 (10) knowingthat Ms. Cope and Mr. Mills were part of the Moore # 1 Ga s Unit, (CL R 916-918) Th e a bo ve do c ume nts c le arl y

ind ic ate d th at nume ro us ind ivi du a ls a nd bu sin e ss e nti tie s o bv iou sly thought that the miner al had not bee n conveyed. Ye t, Appellee who wer e in possession and control of these documents, dec lined to produce these doc uments to the interested pa rties. Demonstratingfurther

dece ption. This case is not a situation where the re is a pla inly evident omission on an unambig uous deed’ s fac e, but rather a

deliberate attempt to mislead. I f there is a materia l omissi on, it is t he result of a n act of fra ud. The c onveyance s from Ms. Cope and Mr. Mills wer e cove red in fr aud on the par t of the Appe llee. The Te x as Attorney Gene ral ha s indicated that ther e ar e thousands and thousands of othe r individuals that have a lso been de ceive d by the Appellee , and would have simil ar doc uments, since Appe llee have admitted that this document was pre pare d in the normal
course of business. (Ta

b C, Clr 851, No. 33). To allow Appe llee to succ eed ba sed on this fraud would appea

r to be a construction which is unre asonable , inequitable, and oppr essive . III . THE MOT ION F OR SANCTIONS FILED BY AP P ELL EE IS F RIVOLOUS Appellee have f

iled a Motions for Sanctions base d on the pre mise that Appellant has f iled a fr ivolous appeal. This is not unusual in that the Appellee filed the same ty pe of motion in the trial court. ( CL R 1956). Rule 45 of the Te x as Rules of Appe llate Proce dure a uthorizes this court to aw ard a preva iling par

ty just damag es if it is determined that a n appea l is frivolous after c onsideringthe
rec ord, brief

s, and other pa

pers f iled in this court. Gard v. Bande ra Cnty. Appraisal Dist ., 293A

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief Pag e 15 S.W .3d 613, 619 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2009, no pet.) ; TEX. R. APP. P . 45. Deter mining wh e the r t o g ra

nt s anc tio ns fo r f

ri vo lou s a pp e a ls i s a

matte r o f d isc re tio n th is c ourt e xer c ise s w ith prudenc e and c aution. Gard, 293 S.W .3d at 619. In makingthat deter mination, we re view the
rec ord fr om the viewpoint of the a dvocate filing the appea l and dec ide whethe r the a dvocate had
rea sonable g rounds to believe the judgme nt could be re verse d. Glassman v. Good- friend, 347 S.W .3d 772, 782 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied) (en ba nc). Al tho ug h im

po sit ion of sanc tio ns is w ith in o ur

dis c re tio n, we may

do so on ly

in circ umstances that a

re truly eg reg ious. Angelou v. African O verse as Union , 33 S.W .3d 269, 282 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) The objective f actor s to be weig hed include the fo llo wi ng : ( 1) fa ilu

re to p re se nt a

c omp le te re c or d; ( 2) ra isi ngiss ue s f or the fi rs t ti me on

a pp e a l, even though prese rvation of e rror was re quired in the trial c ourt; (3) fa ilure to file a r esponse to a reque st for appe llate sanc tions; and (4) filingan inade quate br ief. Tate v . E.I . D up on t deNe mo ur

s &Co. , 954 S.W .2d 872, 875 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.) Appellee ’s basis for c laiming title to all the prope rty in Harr ison County

of Cope and Mil ls i s th e bla

nk e t pr op e rt

y de sc ri pti on

that it c la ims c onve y e d a ll the pr op e rt y to A pp e lle e in 1991. Appellee say s the documents ar e unambiguous, which ar e basic ally plain on the fa ce of the documents. This ana ly sis is i nacc urate . Appellee fails to addre ss that the conveyance s themselves re flec t that there ne ver w as an
a g r e e m e n tt o c o n v e y

a l l th e i n t e r e s t s o f

M i l l s / C o p e t o Ap p e l l e e . T h e c o n v e y an c e s f o un d at( C LR at 18 and CL R at 21), state in par t “Gra ntor ag ree s to ex ecute any supplemental instrument reque sted by

Gra ntee f or a more complete de scription of said land.” I f it was not the intent ofA

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief Pag e 16 the par ties to convey

only what they

had spec ifically

descr ibed, why

would they

have inc luded a provision like this? In the alter native, if they

had intended to c onvey

ever y thing they owned, a pr ov isi on re qu e sti ngsu

pp le me ntatio n w ou ld h ave be e n s up e rf luo us . Ap pe lle e fa ils to a dd

re ss t he langua g e in t

he oth e r c la

us e s in the do c ume nts wh ic h is
c ounte r i nd ic ativ e to t

he c la ims of

the Ap pe lla

nt. Appellee fails to addre ss why the blanket ‘ cover

all’ cla use wa s made pa

rt of the Mother Hubbar d Clause. Ap pe lle e fa ils to a dd

re ss why the fo nt i n th e bla

nk e t c ov e r a ll c la

us e wa s in

su c h s ma ll print it is all but illegible to the na ked eye. Ap pe lle e fa ils to a dd

re ss t he fa c t th at Co pe and

Mil ls h ave le a se d a

nd /or so ld t he min e ra ls th atAp p e l l e e c l a i m s s i n c e 1 9 9 1 , a s r e f l e c t e d i nth e a f f i d av i to f C o p e ( C LR

9 8 3 ) an d M i l l s ( C LR 971), (Ta b S - Appellant’s brie f, CL R 1732, 1733, and 1735). Appellee fails to addre ss the fac t that Cope and Mills paid tax es on the minera ls, as ref lected in ( Tab T - Appellant’s br ief, CL R 1744-1753). Appellee fails to addre ss the fac t that the letter fr om Wagne r & Br own, re fer ringto the lawye rs that e xami ne d ti tle to t he pr op e rt

y , h a d c on c e rn s r e lativ e to t he int e nt o f t

he pa rt ie s to the se de e ds , in c lud ingva g ue de sc ri pti on s w hic h d o n ot s pe c if ic a lly re fe re nc e a s id e nti fi a

ble un it, or trac t of land and the depths ac tually conveyed. In addition, they question if the provision dealingwith convey

ing e very thing in Ha

rrison County , is sufficient to do so, espec ially in view of the va g ue de sc ri pti on s, sin c e the c ourt s h ave he ld t hat Mo the r H ub ba

rd c la us e s w hic h a

re in fine print, may

only apply to small adjace nt strips. (Tab N - A ppellant’s brie f, CL R 932). Ap pe lle e fa ils to a dd

re ss E xhibi t “ A” of

the De c laratio n o f Unit , M oo re # 1 Ga s U nitA

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief Pag e 17 which listed the name s of the individuals included in said unit. (CL R at 916-918) On the third pa g e of the do c ume nt, it s pe c if

ie s: 1 )t he name of

Jame s H ammo nd

Mil ls who le a se d to W. M. Be asley , J r. on Oc tober 3, 1999; and, the name of Virg inia Rose Mitchell Cope who also lea sed to W. M. B e a sle y , Jr. on

Oc tob e r 1 8, 19 99 . ( CL R at 91 8) Th is D e c lara tio n o f Unit

state d in pa rt , “Winchester Produc tion Com pany et al is the owne r of the le g al and/or e quitable and be nefic ial title to oil , g as and miner al lease s . . . .” (CL R at 916) This Unit of Dec laration was produce d by Appellee in his Response to Discovery is Bate s stamped: DAVI S 92, 93, 94. (CL R at 916-918) Appellee fails to addre ss that on Febr uary 23, 2011, Appellee sent out a letter to se vera l ind ivi du a ls i nc lud ingAp pe lla nt, statin gin p art

“ JD Min e ra ls p ur c ha se d 1 00 % o f a ll the int e re st loc ate d in Ha rr iso n Co un ty , T e xas h e ld i n th e name s o f D an G . Ca pe rs , V ir g ini a

Ros e Mit c he ll,
and Jame s H ammo n M ill s. ” (C L R at 35 6, Ta b M ) A t th at ti me , App e lle e fa ile d to dis c los e
cer tain cruc ial fac ts conce rningthe true ownership of the mineral intere st as set forth a bove and in Appellant’s brie f. F or instance , Appellee did not revea l that he had se nt a letter on June 16, 2005 to Virg inia Rose Mills C ope a/k/a V irg inia Rose Mitchell informing her that they wer e withdrawingtheir off

er to pa y $250.00 per ne t mineral ac re, be cause upon further revie w of the title, they found that she ha d previously sold her intere st to another par ty . (CL R 358, Tab G) A t that time, Appellee a lso failed to disclose that he ha d sent a letter to Virg inia Rose Mills C ope
a/k/ a Vi rg ini a Ros e Mit c he ll o n N ov e mbe r 2 1, 20 05 , “ of fe ri ngto b uy

he r m ine ra l or

ro y a lty i n t e r e s tb y

i d e n t i f yi n gy o ur i n t e r e s t , p r e p ar i n gth e p a p e r w o r k an d p ayi n gy o uu

p f r o n t . ” ( C LR 359, 360, Tab H) Attache d to the November 21, 2005 letter wa s a Conditional Draft in the amount of $45.00. A c loser re view of this document r evea ls that, “This draf t is drawn to pay

for that c e rt a in Univ e rs a l, C ounty -Wi de Sa le , Co nv e y anc e and As signme nt o f M ine ra l and Roya ltyA

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief Pag e 18 In t e r e s t s ( th e “ C o n v e yan c e ” ) , c o v e r i n ga l l o f G r an t o r ’ s r o ya l ty i n t e r e s t s i nH A R R IS O N C o un ty, T e x a s . ” ( C L R

3 5 9 , T a b H ) E n c l o s e d

w i thth i s l e tt e r

w a s a d o c u m e n te n t i t l e d

“ U n i v e r s a l C o un tyWide Sale, Convey ance , and Assig nment of Minera l and Roy alty Intere sts. This document specifie d that it included “all (100% ) of the oil, g as and othe r minera ls, in, on and under, a nd
may be pr od uc e d, se ve re d, so ld a

nd /or mark e te d f

ro m any and a ll l and s” wh ic h in c lud e d a ll mineral intere sts and roy alty interests. (CL R 360, Tab H) The first document, to the landowner, state s it is a ro y a lty int e re st a nd the se c on d d oc ume nt, to b e fi le d w iththe County Cle rk , c la ims it is a mineral and royalty

interest. This is exactly

the patter n and pra ctice that Appellee ha s used
ov e r t he y e ars . N ote the le tte r a nd dr a ft are bo th s ig ne d b y

Jame s H . D avis
. Ap pe lle e fa ils to a dd

re ss t hat in the le tte r o f F e br

ua ry 23 , 2 01 1, and

at ti me s su

bs e qu e nt, Ap pe lle e a lso fa ile d to dis c los e that th e y ha d s e nt s e ve ra l ot

he r d oc ume nts to V ir g ini a Ros e Mil ls Cope a/k/a Virg inia Rose Mitchell indicating that Appellee was ope ratingunder the belief that sh e sti ll o wn e d mi ne ra l inte re sts in H arr iso n Co un ty , T e xas: L etter/for m dated September

15, 2008, askingpermission to obtain information as to all the minera l and royalty interest she owned in Har rison County , Texas. (CL R at 361, Tab K) ; L e tte r d ate d O c tob e r 3 1, 20 08 , w ith dr e w A pp e lle e ’s of

fe r t o p ay $7 ,2 60 .0 0. Statin g , “ in re vie wi ngtit le inf

or matio n, JDMI , L .L .C. fo un d you have so ld your m ine ra l and ro y a lty interest prior to date.” ( CL R at 362, Tab L ); and, L e tte r d ate d July

19 , 2 01 1, a dmi tti ngkn ow le dg e that sh e ha d a lr e a dy so ld a ll h e r i nte re st a lr e a dy to a no the r c omp any . ( CL R at 36 3, Ta b R) Ap pe lle e fa ils to a dd

re ss t hat in the le tte r o f F e br

ua ry 23 , 2 01 1, Ap pe lle e a lso fa ile d to disclose that on Novembe r 26, 2007, they had sent a

letter to James Hammond Mills stating the y
wer e purc hasinghis interest for $4,817.43. ( CL R 364, Tab I ) These documents indicate thatA

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief Pag e 19 Ap pe lle e tho ug ht C op e and Mil ls r e ta ine d p os se ssi on and c on tr ol o f t

he ir min e ra l inte re sts in H ar r i s o nC o un ty. Appellee fails to addre ss the numerous admissions that Appellee admitted reg arding alleg ations of fra

ud in the numerous lawsuits that had be en filed a g ainst Appellee
. Th is M oti on

fo r S anc tio ns is w ith out me ri t and it n oth ingmor e tha

n a smo ke sc re e n to defle ct this busy

court fr om the leg itimate issues that were ear nestly prese nted by

Appellant. Th e re are nume ro us qu e sti on s w hic h th is c ourt ne e ds to a dd

re ss. Ap pe lla

nt r e qu e sts that th is court de ny

the meritless sanc tions mot ion.

CO NC LU SION AN D P RA YE R The trial c ourt committed reve rsible er ror by issuing its Order

Gra nting De fenda

nt’s Motion for Summary

J udg ment and RendingFinal Summary J udg ment. The Summary J udg ment should be reve rsed a nd rende red f

or Appe llant, or in the alternative should be reve rsed and re manded to the tria l court, for issues of fa ct to be dec ided by the trier of

fac t. The Motion for Sanc tions filed by

Appellee is without m erit and should be de nied. RESP ECTFUL L Y SUBMI TTED, /s/ Bo b W hite hu rst B ob Whit e hurs t 5380 Old Bullar d Road, Suite 600, #363 Tyler, Te x as 75703 (903)593- 5588 State Ba r #21358100A

pp ellant’s Reply

Brief Pag e 20 CERTIFIC ATE OF COM P LIANCE In acc ordanc e with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedur e 9.4(i)( 3), Appe llant cer tifies that this brief conta ins 7181 words and ther efor e complies with the wor d limit ation imposed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedur e 9.4(i)( 2)(B ). /s/ B ob Whit e hurs t B ob Whit e hurs t

CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE Ihere by cer tify that a true copy

of the a bove and f

oreg oing instrument ha s been se rved on all counsel of r ecor d in acc ordanc e with the Rules of Civil Procedure on this 28th day of August, 2015. /s/ B ob Whit e hurs t B ob Whit e hurs t