Source: http://texas-opinions.com/08-Kerlin-v-Sauceda-Tex-2008-Substitute-Op-by-ONeill-oil-gas-royalty-claim-limitations.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 15:58:44+00:00

Document:
was present in the state. Accordingly, the statute of limitations bars the Ballis’ claims.
We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment for Kerlin.
Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Justice Brister filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Medina,and Justice Willett joined.
tolling and, accordingly, are time-barred. We therefore reverse and render judgment for the defendants.
the other Padre Nicolas heirs conveyed their interests in the southern half of the island to Nicolas Grisanti.
awarding possession of the island to a number of parties. See Grisanti v. Am. Trust Co. of N.J., No. 18 (C.C.
S.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 1905).
obtained eleven general warranty deeds from the heirs, each containing a reserved royalty interest.
but he did not mention the Havre v. Dunn settlement.
Seabury filed a motion to dismiss the Ballis’ cross-action in Havre v. Dunn.
have the burden of proof in an expensive, time-consuming lawsuit to prove otherwise.
Ballis’ benefit which he failed to share with them.
contending that Kerlin’s presence in the state when wrongdoing occurred was established as a matter of law.
See, e.g., Howard v. Fiesta Tex. Show Park, Inc., 980 S.W.2d 716, 723 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet.
accounting, which it reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. 164 S.W.3d at 903.
their resolution is potentially dispositive of the parties’ remaining claims.
Chem. Corp. v. Winograd, 956 S.W.2d 529, 531 (Tex. 1997); Nichols v. Smith, 507 S.W.2d 518, 519 (Tex.
basis, HECI is nevertheless instructive in this case.
After the Havre v. Dunn settlement, Kerlin advised the Ballis that their claims were worthless. Havre v.
tolling applies, their claims are time barred.
limitations has not run on the Ballis’ claims against him.
same legal force and validity as if served personally.
Act of May 8, 1959, 56th Leg., R.S., ch. 502, § 1, 1959 Tex. Gen. Laws 1103, 1103–04 (codified at Tex. Civ.
this state would not be established for purposes of the tolling statute.
from January 1, 1966, until February 8, 1991, and that he continued to deceive the Ballis about the Havre v.
was thus not absent from Texas, the tolling statute does not apply and limitations bars the Ballis’ claims.
Because the Ballis’ claims are time barred, we need not address Kerlin’s other arguments.
the Ballis’ claims. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment for Kerlin.
conveyed to Morales “one-half league” of the land he inherited and retained 7,444 acres for himself.
 We generally refer to the defendants collectively as “Kerlin,” although in some contexts we refer to Gilbert Kerlin individually.
that ground and not wade into ancillary constitutional questions.”).
undisputed that these Texas corporations have never been absent from the state.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 § 1
 v.