Flag-Redfern Oil Co. v. Humble Exploration Co.
31 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 119, 101 Oil & Gas Rep. 545, 744 S.W.2d 6 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a lien theory jurisdiction, a deed from a mortgagor to a mortgagee given in satisfaction of a debt does not extinguish the vested legal title of an intervening purchaser who acquired an interest in the property after the mortgage was executed but before the satisfaction deed was given.
Facts:
- On January 12, 1922, Ped and Emma Scott executed a deed of trust on their property to J.L. Kocurek to secure an $840 promissory note.
- On January 15, 1931, while the note was still outstanding, the Scotts conveyed an undivided one-half mineral interest in the same property to Flag-Redfern Oil Company’s predecessors in title.
- After the promissory note became past due, the Scotts fell into default.
- On November 29, 1932, the Scotts executed a deed conveying the entire property, including all minerals, to Kocurek for the stated consideration of cancelling the original debt.
- Humble Exploration Company eventually became the successor in interest to Kocurek.
Procedural Posture:
- Humble Exploration Company brought a declaratory judgment action against Flag-Redfern Oil Company in a Texas trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Humble, declaring it the owner of the disputed mineral interest.
- Flag-Redfern Oil Company, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Texas court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment for Humble Exploration Company, the appellee.
- Flag-Redfern Oil Company then brought the case before the Supreme Court of Texas for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a deed from a mortgagor to a mortgagee, given in satisfaction of a debt secured by a deed of trust, extinguish the legal title of an intervening purchaser who acquired a portion of the property after the mortgage was executed but before the satisfaction deed was given?
Opinions:
Majority - Campbell, Justice.
No. A deed given by a mortgagor to a mortgagee in satisfaction of a debt does not operate as a foreclosure and therefore does not cut off the rights of an intervening purchaser of a legal interest. Texas is a lien theory state, meaning a mortgagor (the Scotts) retains legal title to the property, while the mortgagee (Kocurek) holds only an equitable lien. Because the Scotts held legal title, their conveyance of a one-half mineral interest to Flag-Redfern's predecessor was a valid transfer of a legal estate. Consequently, when the Scotts later deeded the property to Kocurek, they could only convey the interest they still owned, which no longer included the mineral interest sold to Flag-Redfern. A formal foreclosure proceeding, with its required notice, would have been necessary to extinguish Flag-Redfern’s legally acquired interest.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a crucial distinction in property law between a deed in lieu of foreclosure and a formal foreclosure proceeding, particularly within a lien theory of mortgages. It establishes that a private conveyance between a debtor and creditor cannot unilaterally extinguish the valid, vested legal property rights of a third-party purchaser. The ruling protects junior interest holders by preserving their due process rights, such as notice and the opportunity to redeem their interest or bid at a public sale, which are only afforded in a formal foreclosure. This prevents a senior lienholder and a mortgagor from colluding to eliminate intervening property interests through a private transaction.
