Moser v. United States Steel Corp.
82 Oil & Gas Rep. 143, 27 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 473, 676 S.W.2d 99 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conveyance or reservation of 'other minerals' includes all substances within the ordinary and natural meaning of the word, including uranium, as a matter of law. However, if the mineral is not specifically named, the mineral owner must compensate the surface owner for any surface destruction resulting from the extraction of that mineral.
Facts:
- Prior to 1949, the boundary between land owned by the predecessors of the Mosers and the Gefferts was a winding road.
- In 1949, the road was straightened, leaving a 6.77-acre tract of the Geffert ranch on the Moser's side and a 6.42-acre tract of the Moser ranch on the Geffert's side.
- To avoid having to cross the new highway, the parties' predecessors in title executed deeds to exchange these isolated surface tracts.
- The 1949 deeds contained identical reservation clauses for 'all of the oil, gas, and other minerals of every kind and character'.
- Substantial quantities of uranium were later discovered on the 6.77-acre tract whose surface was conveyed to the Mosers' predecessor.
Procedural Posture:
- The Mosers (surface owners) sued the Gefferts (mineral owners) in trial court to quiet title to the uranium.
- The Gefferts counterclaimed to establish their ownership of the uranium as part of the mineral estate.
- Based on a jury finding that extraction would not have destroyed the surface at the time of the 1949 deed, the trial court held that the uranium belonged to the Gefferts.
- The Mosers, as appellants, appealed to the court of civil appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The court of civil appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, reasoning that under the newer 'Reed II' test, the only reasonable mining method at the time of trial did not cause substantial surface destruction.
- The Mosers then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas (the state's highest court for civil matters).
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 reservation of 'oil, gas, and other minerals' in a deed sever ownership of uranium from the surface estate, making it part of the mineral estate as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Campbell, Justice
Yes, a reservation of 'oil, gas, and other minerals' includes uranium as a matter of law, making it part of the mineral estate. The court abandons its prior surface-destruction test for uranium to create title certainty, holding that a severance of 'other minerals' includes all substances within the ordinary and natural meaning of that word, regardless of whether their presence was known at the time of severance. However, while the mineral owner has the right to use the surface for extraction, this right is not absolute for unnamed minerals. Unlike specifically granted minerals, the mineral owner who takes an unnamed substance like uranium must compensate the surface owner for surface destruction caused by its removal. This new rule of compensation is to be applied prospectively only.
Dissenting - Ray, Justice
Yes, uranium is a mineral and belongs to the mineral estate owner, but the new compensation rule should apply to the current case. While agreeing with the majority's new rule that mineral owners must compensate for surface destruction when extracting unnamed minerals, the dissent argues against applying this rule prospectively. The dissent contends that the reasons for prospective application—public reliance and unforeseeability—do not apply here, and therefore, the Mosers should be entitled to compensation for the destruction of their surface estate.
Analysis:
This case marks a significant departure from the Texas Supreme Court's prior jurisprudence in Acker v. Guinn and Reed v. Wylie, which employed a fact-intensive 'surface destruction' test to determine ownership of unnamed minerals. By establishing a bright-line rule that uranium belongs to the mineral estate as a matter of law, the Court prioritized title certainty over the previous, less predictable standard. The decision creates a new balancing act: it grants title of unnamed minerals to the mineral estate but imposes a new duty to compensate the surface owner for resulting destruction, a liability that did not previously exist for the reasonable use of the dominant mineral estate. The prospective application of this new rule limits its immediate impact but sets a clear standard for all future conveyances.
