Hosek v Scott, 4th Court of Appeals, San Antonio
October 21, 2015, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 10792

Sublings partitioned the surface of a 338.54 tract of land but excluded the minerals, with some unusual language that the minerals “are to remain undivided for a period of twenty-five (25) years . . .” The court held that the minerals remained undivided after the 25 year period.

Hosek contended that the language of the partition deed indicated that the parties intended the minerals to be divided along with the surface when the 25 year period ended, or at least that there was ambiguity about what was intended. The trial court, in a decision affirmed by the court of appeals, held that the partition deed did not partition the minerals so that they remained undivided when the term ended. The court held that the language of the deed merely meant that the parties could not partition the minerals for the 25-year period, and since they did not partition them after the period ended, that they remained undivided.