Source: http://texas-opinions.com/08-Kerlin-v-Sauceda-Tex-2008-by-ONeill-oil-gas-royalty-claim-time-barred-limitations-not-tolled.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:08:06+00:00

Document:
Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
reverse the court of appeals' judgment and render judgment for Kerlin.
GILBERT KERLIN, INDIVIDUALLY, GILBERT KERLIN, TRUSTEE, WINDWARD OIL & GAS CORP., AND PI CORP. v.
Justice Brister delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Medina, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Brister filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Medina, and Justice Willett joined.
nom De Lourett v. Kerlin, 182 F.2d 750 (5th Cir. 1950); State v. Balli, 190 S.W.2d 71 (Tex. 1944); Havre v.
and, accordingly, are time-barred. We therefore reverse and render judgment for the defendants.
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).
possession of Padre Island, but for the southernmost 7,500 acres, to Sam A. Robertson and W. E. Callahan.
Two of the cross-defendants timely filed a bill of review, which remained pending until the late 1930s.
eleven general warranty deeds from the heirs, each containing a reserved royalty interest.
those claims by obtaining a new trial and pursuing a cross-action in Havre v. Dunn. His attorney, F. W.
On February 28, 1940, Kerlin, Gilbert, and Seabury met with the opposing parties to discuss settlement.
motion to dismiss the Ballis' cross-action in Havre v. Dunn.
petitioner Windward Oil & Gas Corp., acquired one of Kerlin's partner's mineral interests in the island.
burden of proof in an expensive, time-consuming lawsuit to prove otherwise.
Eight years later, in February 1993, some of the present Balli parties sued Kerlin, Windward, and PI Corp.
affirmative defenses, including that the Ballis' claims were time barred by the statute of limitations and laches.
benefit which he failed to share with them.
physically present in the state when wrongdoing occurred that formed the basis of the Ballis' claims.
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.
Kerlin's petition for review to consider the issues presented. 51 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 445, 457-58 (Feb. 18, 2008).
potentially dispositive of the parties' remaining claims.
to royalty payments and the details of the Havre v. Dunn settlement prevented limitations from running.
A defendant's fraudulent concealment of wrongdoing may toll the running of limitations. Shah v. Moss, 67 S.W.
the wrong or could have discovered it through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Id.; Velsicol Chem. Corp.
successful suit against an adjoining operator for damages to the common field. 982 S.W.2d 881 (Tex. 1998).
been discovered within the limitations period through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Id. at 887-88.
that its applicability is determined on a categorical basis, HECI is nevertheless instructive in this case.
tolling statute does not apply in these circumstances, we need not resolve either of those issues.
not run on the Ballis' claims against him.
service of process is available under the provisions of Article 2039a.” Id. at 488. We held that it did. Id.
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.
Collection, Inc. v. Coleman, 83 S.W.3d 801, 806 (Tex. 2002); CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 594 (Tex.
purposes of the tolling statute.
Ballis' claims are time barred, we need not address Kerlin's other arguments.
claims. We reverse the court of appeals' judgment and render judgment for Kerlin.
had only conveyed to Morales “one-half league” of the land he inherited and retained 7,444 acres for himself.
judgment. We granted that motion.
Corp., as it is undisputed that these Texas corporations have never been absent from the state.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v.