Court Opinion

ID: 9681407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:49:45.074467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:33.779857
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR REHEARING
On Motion for Rehearing appellees contend that our opinion be limited to a of the %2nd of the %ths mineral in the 5,665.7 acres of land because the ½ interest in the minerals constituted the community property as between the decedent, B. B. Simmonds and the life tenant, and that the conveyance by Mrs. Simmonds to the Puenticitas Oil Company conveyed the entire community interest and that this Court has treated the reconveyed %2nd of the %ths interest as coming entirely out of the estate of the decedent in which Mrs. Sim-monds has a life estate.
We are unable as a matter of law to determine the effect and extent of the reconveyance of the %2nd of the ^ths interest and such is a fact issue to be decided by the Trial Court in the first instance on evidence, the burden resting on the plaintiffs to show the source of such reconveyed interest, and we remand the case to the Trial Court for such purpose. To this extent the motion is granted and in other respects it is overruled
We direct the attention of the Trial Court and the parties hereto to Ford v. Anderson et al, Tex.Civ.App., 83 S.W.2d 443, where it is held that the presumption that grantees in deeds are conveyed equal interests does not apply to grantors. By analogy, we would hold that the presumption does not apply to a grantor conveying in dual capacities.
Motion granted in part and in part overruled.