Roxie Sue Shorter F/K/A Roxie Sue Wolf v. Coffield Family Properties, LTD.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)
Date FiledAugust 31, 2026
Docket11-25-00251-CV
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Opinion filed August 31, 2026
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-25-00251-CV
__________
ROXIE SUE SHORTER F/K/A ROXIE SUE WOLF, ET AL.,
Appellants
V.
COFFIELD FAMILY PROPERTIES, LTD., ET AL., Appellees
On Appeal from the 132nd District Court
Borden County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1412
OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellants filed a motion for rehearing after the issuance of this court’s
original opinion on July 23, 2026. In our opinion, we held that, based on the
unambiguous language of the 1944 deed, the grantors reserved a floating 1/2 royalty
interest. In other words, looking solely to the language within the four corners of
the 1944 deed, we resolved the case primarily on the construction of that conveyance
document. In their motion for rehearing, Appellants advance several deed-
construction arguments, principally that the future lease clause rebuts the Van Dyke
presumption. See Van Dyke v. Navigator Grp., 668 S.W.3d 353, 364 (Tex. 2023).
Appellants offer no reason to revisit our conclusion that we have not previously
considered.
Although pled as an affirmative defense and addressed in their response to
Appellee’s motion for summary judgment in the trial court, the presumed grant
doctrine was not advanced or briefed by Appellants as an issue in this appeal.
Appellants are clear in their position that an “issue” of presumed grant was not
properly before us in this case, stating that we “correctly noted that [we do not have
the] ability to raise the issue sua sponte.” In this regard, they argue that their
“elect[ion] to drop their presumed grant argument on appeal indicate[d] a strategic
decision based on evidence presented, but ha[d] no bearing on whether the text of
the instrument rebut[ted] the Van Dyke presumption.” (Emphasis added). This
election resulted in the affirmance of the trial court’s judgment on this issue without
regard to the merits. See Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tex.
2013).
We deny Appellants’ motion for rehearing.
W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE
August 31, 2026
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
2