Citation by Publication/Notice Details

Cause Number : CV2016587
Name(s) of party to be served : HUNTER INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES, INC. AND HUNTER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC
Court/County : 253rd District Court - Liberty County (Liberty)
Citation Type : Other – Citation by Publication or Notice
Publication Start Date :  1/22/2021
Publication End Date :  3/5/2021
Status : Active
Citation/Notice Text :

A brief statement of the nature of this suit is as follows, to wit: *REAL PROPERTY, This is a suit for reformation of a December 1, 1991 conveyance (“Assignment”) involving a mutual mistake in drafting the property description, in particular the exception of property to be retained by the grantor from the conveyance. This was an intercorporate conveyance between related companies with the intent of reserving the mineral estate under a certain 62.5 acre (+/-) tract to the grantor. A metes and bounds description of the mineral estate in question is attached to the TBC Deed, but for purposes of this petition it shall be referred to as “62.5 acre tract” and/or “62.5 acres”. The desire of this litigation is to reform the conveyance and amend the property description, in particular, set forth in the Assignment so the exception to the conveyance is properly written in favor of the grantor, as was the intent of the “Assignment” to begin with, and to confirm that by virtue of after acquired title, the mineral estate in the 62.5 acres was in fact conveyed to TBC per the TBC Deed. The property excepted in the 1991 conveyance was in error and did not properly describe the property intended by both parties to be retained by the grantor. The specific error was not including a 20 acre(+/-, tracts 4 and 5) mineral tract and two 3.3685 acre (+/-) mineral tracts (tracts 2 and 3).The mutual intent was to except 62.5 mineral acres from the conveyance, while the exception as written only included 35.763 acres located within a 166.59 acre tract. The conveyance exception needs to be amended to include the additional 26.737 acres (+/-, tracts 2, 3, 4 and 5). The 1991 conveyance simply did not express the mutual intent of the parties. Unfortunately, the error was not discovered until a title opinion was prepared pending a sale of the property in 2020, hence this lawsuit as is more fully shown by Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition on file in this suit.