Broadway Nat'l Bank v. Yates Energy Corp.

Full title: BROADWAY NATIONAL BANK, TRUSTEE OF THE MARY FRANCES EVERS TRUST, ET AL.…

Court: SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

Date published: May 14, 2021

631 S.W.3d 16 (Tex. 2021)

Opinion

No. 19-0334

05-14-2021

BROADWAY NATIONAL BANK, TRUSTEE OF the MARY FRANCES EVERS TRUST, et al., Petitioners v. YATES ENERGY CORPORATION, EOG Resources, Inc., Jalapeno Corporation, ACG3 Mineral Interests, Ltd., Glassell Non-Operated Interests, Ltd., and Curry Glassell, Respondents

Murry B. Cohen, Houston, R. Laurence Macon, Michael J. Byrd, Andrew B. Bender, Houston, for Respondents Glassell, Curry, Yates Energy Corporation, Jalapeno Corporation. Aaron Daniel Day, for Amicus Curiae Texas Land Title Association. Corey F. Wehmeyer, Benjamin G. Robertson, San Antonio, for Respondents EOG Resources, Inc. Hannah D. Sibiski, David J. Weiner, Houston, for Respondents Glassell Non-Operated Interests, Ltd., ACG3 Mineral Interests, Ltd. Deborah Smith McClure, Gregory A. Richards, for Petitioners Dyal, Michael E. Stephanie L. Curette, David Jed Williams, San Antonio, Gregory A. Richards, Deborah Smith McClure, for Petitioners Westco Family Limited Partnership. Ryan D. Clinton, Austin, Julie L. Griffis, for Amicus Curiae Texas Oil & Gas Association. Stephanie L. Curette, San Antonio, Alithea Z. Sullivan, David Jed Williams, San Antonio, Joseph R. Knight, Austin, for Petitioners Broadway National Bank, Trustee of the Mary Frances Evers Trust.

Justice Devine delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Hecht, Justice Boyd, Justice Bland, and Justice Huddle joined.

Murry B. Cohen, Houston, R. Laurence Macon, Michael J. Byrd, Andrew B. Bender, Houston, for Respondents Glassell, Curry, Yates Energy Corporation, Jalapeno Corporation.

Aaron Daniel Day, for Amicus Curiae Texas Land Title Association.

Corey F. Wehmeyer, Benjamin G. Robertson, San Antonio, for Respondents EOG Resources, Inc.

Hannah D. Sibiski, David J. Weiner, Houston, for Respondents Glassell Non-Operated Interests, Ltd., ACG3 Mineral Interests, Ltd.

Deborah Smith McClure, Gregory A. Richards, for Petitioners Dyal, Michael E.

Stephanie L. Curette, David Jed Williams, San Antonio, Gregory A. Richards, Deborah Smith McClure, for Petitioners Westco Family Limited Partnership.

Ryan D. Clinton, Austin, Julie L. Griffis, for Amicus Curiae Texas Oil & Gas Association.

Stephanie L. Curette, San Antonio, Alithea Z. Sullivan, David Jed Williams, San Antonio, Joseph R. Knight, Austin, for Petitioners Broadway National Bank, Trustee of the Mary Frances Evers Trust.

Justice Devine delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Hecht, Justice Boyd, Justice Bland, and Justice Huddle joined. The Texas Property Code authorizes the correction of a material error in a recorded original instrument of conveyance by agreement. See TEX. PROP. CODE § 5.029. To be effective, the instrument correcting the error must be executed by each party to the original instrument "or, if applicable, a party's heirs, successors, or assigns." Id. § 5.029(b)(1). The issue here is when are an original party's heirs, successors, or assigns applicable, such that their agreement is necessary to make the correction.

In this case, the court of appeals considered whether the original parties could validly agree to correct a mistake in the original instrument of conveyance, after a third party acquired an interest. The court concluded that the original parties could no longer correct their mistake solely by their agreement after an assignment. 609 S.W.3d 140, 149 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018). The court reasoned that the assignment or sale of an interest in the property by an original party triggered the "if applicable" clause, requiring the joinder of the assign for a material correction. Id. at 148. In short, the court held that a validly executed correction instrument under section 5.029 must be signed by the property's current owners.

We do not agree that a correction instrument's validity under 5.029 invariably depends on the consent of an assign or subsequent purchaser. Rather, we understand the "if applicable" clause to provide a substitute person or entity to sign when a party to the original conveyance is unavailable to sign a correction instrument for a material error. Because we disagree with the court of appeals' interpretation of the "if applicable" clause as the statute's method for protecting the property interests of subsequent purchasers, we reverse and remand.

I. Background

The property at issue was once part of an inter vivos trust created by Mary Francis Evers. Included in that trust were several property interests in DeWitt and Gonzales Counties. A few months before Mary's death in 2003, she amended her trust to allocate its property to her descendants.

The 2003 amendment provided that the trust property was to be divided among four of Mary's children: Mariellen Evers Dyal, Sandra Evers Pierce, Jamie Evers Drago, and Eben John Evers (referred to as "John" hereinafter). Although the trust property was to be divided into four equal shares, the share allocated to Mary's son, John, was to "be distributed" to the Trustee "to hold in a separate trust," designated as a supplemental-needs trust. Mary's inter vivos trust named Broadway National Bank as Trustee (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank" or "Trustee"). Under the terms of John's supplemental-needs trust, the Trustee was to "apply for the benefit of [John] such amounts from the income or principal as the trustee in [its] sole discretion may from time to time deem necessary or advisable for the satisfaction of [John's] supplemental needs." If John's supplemental-needs trust did not terminate within his lifetime, the trust was to terminate on his death, and the remaining trust estate divided equally between one of Mary's daughters, Jamie Evers Drago, and one of her grandsons, Mike E. Dyal, or their respective descendants per stirpes.

In 2005, the Bank, acting as trustee of Mary's trust, executed a mineral deed that conveyed the trust's mineral interests in DeWitt and Gonzales Counties to her children as designated by Mary in the 2003 trust amendment. In the 2005 Mineral Deed, John received an undivided 25 percent interest in fee simple, which the Bank asserts was a mistake. To correct the error, the Bank, as Trustee, filed a Corrected Mineral Deed in 2006, explaining that John was only entitled to the distribution of a life estate in the minerals conveyed in the 2005 deed. The 2006 Corrected Deed also identified those whom Mary had designated to receive what remained of John's share of the trust property at his death. The 2006 Corrected Deed, like the 2005 Mineral Deed it was meant to replace, was signed only by Broadway National Bank, Trustee of the Mary Frances Evers Trust. Because some of the mineral interests described in the 2006 Correction Deed were already under lease to Yates Energy Corporation, the Trustee sent copies of the recorded 2006 Correction Deed to Yates with instructions to pay royalties to the grantees.

Several years later, John executed a Royalty Deed, dated February 1, 2012, conveying his royalty interests from oil and gas leases in DeWitt and Gonzales Counties to Yates. The leases covered the mineral interests that the Trustee had conveyed to John in the 2005 Mineral Deed. Yates assigned 70 percent of the royalty interests acquired from John to EOG Resources, Inc. pursuant to a farmout agreement and the remaining rights were assigned to others.¹ All of these instruments were dated as effective February 1, 2012, and recorded in the appropriate counties.

1 Those obtaining assignments of the remaining rights included Jalapeno Corp., EnerQuest Oil & Gas, LLC, ACG3 Mineral Interests, Ltd., Glassell Non-Operated Interests, Ltd., Curry Glassell, DKE Dyersdale, Inc., Cathy Dohnalek, Walter H. Mengden, Jr., WHMIII Dubose, LLC, Joseph Mengden, Carl C. Mengden, Susan Mengden, Michel C. Mengden, and Pati-Dubose, Inc.

Although the assignment from Yates to EOG Resources was "effective as of February 1, 2012," EOG did not execute it until August of the next year. Meanwhile, a title attorney working with EOG Resources raised several questions about the extent of John's royalty interests. In a memorandum titled "Summary of Comments and Interpretations," EOG's attorney discusses his thoughts about the relevant documents, which he identified as the recorded 2005 Mineral Deed, the recorded 2006 Correction Deed, the unrecorded 2003 Amendment to the Mary Frances Evers Trust, and the recorded Royalty Deed from John to Yates, dated February 1, 2012.

The court of appeals summarizes this memorandum, beginning with the 2006 Correction Deed, whose validity the attorney questioned. The attorney noted that this correction instrument did not comply with the statute because it was executed only by the Trustee, and not also by John and his siblings, who were the grantees in the 2005 Mineral Deed. The court of appeals' summary continues:

To further complicate matters, the title attorney indicated the 2003 Trust Amendment could be interpreted as only authorizing Broadway Bank to convey a life estate in the trust property to John, and in the event of such interpretation, then Broadway Bank could only convey what it was authorized to convey to John as opposed to the fee simple estate in minerals it conveyed in the 2005 Mineral Deed. The title attorney concluded that for the 2006 Correction Mineral Deed to be valid, an amended correction deed should be executed by "all of the parties to show that [John] and all of the [g]rantees to said [2005 Mineral Deed] accept the change of ownership in the [2006 Correction Mineral Deed]." The title attorney further concluded that if an amended correction deed was executed, it would affect the type of interest—life estate or fee—John conveyed to Yates Energy Corporation in the 2012 Royalty Deed and Assignment of Overriding Royalty Interest, and subsequently, the type of interest Yates Energy Corporation assigned to EOG Resources. The title attorney advised that if EOG Resources wanted to secure a full fee estate interest, it needed to obtain John's life estate interest from Yates Energy Corporation and assignments of overriding royalty from the remaindermen identified in the 2006 Correction Deed.

609 S.W.3d at 143–44. These concerns were subsequently communicated to the Bank by email, advising that EOG's title attorney had confirmed the need for an Amended Correction Deed for the Mary Frances Evers Trust.

In November 2013, the Bank, as Trustee, executed and recorded an Amended Correction Deed, which was signed by all of the parties to the original 2005 Mineral Deed. Like the 2006 Correction, the 2013 Amended Correction Deed advised that the 2005 Mineral Deed made an incorrect conveyance of a fee estate to John, who instead was entitled to only a life estate, with remainder interest identified as in the 2006 Correction. A few months after signing the Amended Correction Deed, John died.

John's death ignited this dispute over the extent of the 2012 conveyance to Yates. The Bank maintains that Yates and its assignees acquired only John's life estate in the disputed royalties, as described in the 2013 Amended Correction Deed. As Trustee, it argues that these royalties are now owned by the Remaindermen identified in the correction instrument. Conversely, Yates contends that John acquired full ownership of these royalties under the Trustee's 2005 Mineral Deed; the 2012 royalty deed from John to Yates likewise conveyed full ownership; and the 2013 Correction Deed did not change that or otherwise affect Yates's title.

To resolve this dispute, the Bank sought declaratory relief in the probate court. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 37.001 –.011 (Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act). It named Yates and its assignees as defendants and the Remaindermen as necessary parties.² The Bank's suit asked the probate court to construe the title instruments and declare that the 2012 Royalty Deed conveyed John's life interest only to Yates and that title to John's mineral interests passed to the Remaindermen upon his death. The Remaindermen joined the Bank's claim against Yates and its assignees. Yates and its assignees answered, asserted affirmative defenses, and counterclaimed for breach of express warranty and declaratory relief. Their counterclaim sought to establish that: (1) the 2005 Mineral Deed was binding and enforceable; (2) the 2006 and 2013 Correction Deeds were invalid; and (3) Yates's status as a bona fide purchaser was irrelevant because of the invalidity of the Correction Deeds. Yates and its assignees also sought damages for breach of the Trustee's express warranty of title in the 2005 deed to John. All litigants sought their attorneys' fees, and all moved for summary judgment.

2 The defendants in the probate court included Yates Energy Corporation, EOG Resources, Inc., Jalapeno Corp., EnerQuest Oil & Gas, LLC, ACG3 Mineral Interests, Ltd., Glassell Non-Operated Interests, Ltd., Curry Glassell, DKE Dyersdale, Inc., Cathy Dohnalek, Walter H. Mengden, Jr., WHMIII Dubose, LLC, Joseph Mengden, Carl C. Mengden, Susan Mengden, Michel C. Mengden, and Pati-Dubose, Inc. The Remaindermen were identified as Mike E. Dyal and the Westco Family Limited Partnership.

The probate court granted summary judgment for the Bank and the Remaindermen, declaring that: (1) the 2013 Amended Correction Deed was valid, conveyed to John only a life estate in the mineral interests, and effectively replaced the 2005 Mineral Deed; (2) Yates accordingly received only a life estate from John; and (3) what remained in John's supplemental-needs trust vested in the Remaindermen upon John's death. The probate court further concluded that Yates and its assignees were not bona fide purchasers because the 2006 Correction Deed provided notice to them as a matter of law.

Yates and its assignees appealed. Although "each party to the recorded original instrument of conveyance" executed the 2013 Amended Correction Deed, TEX. PROP. CODE § 5.029(b)(1), the appellate court held the correction instrument invalid and consequently concluded "it did not replace the 2005 Mineral Deed." 609 S.W.3d at 148 (citing TEX. PROP. CODE § 5.030(a)(1) ). The court accordingly reversed the summary judgment, which granted the Trustee's motion, and the final judgment, which declared the Remaindermen to be the owners of the disputed property interests. Id. at 149–50. Finally, the court remanded Yates's counterclaim for breach of express warranty and related claim for attorneys's fees to the probate court for further proceedings. Id. at 150. A concurring justice agreed that the correction instrument was invalid, but disagreed with the court's construction of the Property Code in some respects. Id. at 150–53. (Alvarez, J. concurring).

The Bank and Remaindermen³ appeal, complaining that the 2013 Amended Correction Deed complies with the Property Code's requirements for a material-correction instrument and that the court of appeals therefore erred in holding it invalid. Yates and its assignees respond that the 2013 Correction Deed is not only invalid, as the court of appeals' has determined, but is also barred by limitations. Thus, even were we to disagree with the court of appeals' application of the Property Code, Yates argues we should nevertheless render judgment barring the Bank's suit to enforce the amended correction instrument.

3 Remaindermen also present a new theory as to why they should prevail. They argue that the original conveyance in 2005 should be declared void because the Bank did not have authority as Trustee to convey the mineral interest in fee simple to John. Consequently, they submit, the 2006 Correction Deed is the valid, original conveyance of the property, and it conveyed only a life estate in the property to John. This theory was not presented to the probate court as a ground for summary judgment, nor was it argued in the court of appeals. The complaint is further inconsistent with the summary judgment rendered below in the Remaindermen's favor—a judgment they ask this Court to reinstate, among other things. The argument has not been properly raised or preserved for appellate review.

We begin with the issue the court of appeals found dispositive: Whether the execution of the 2013 Amended Correction Deed complies with Property Code section 5.029 and thus validly corrects a material error in the original 2005 Mineral Deed. Id. at 146.

II. The Correction-Instrument Statutes

Section 5.029 is part of a group of statutes that provide for the correction of errors in a recorded instrument of conveyance with a subsequently recorded "correction instrument." See TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 5.027 –.031 (providing for the use of correction instruments to remedy errors in real property conveyances).⁴ Under these statutes, "[a] correction instrument replaces and is a substitute for the original instrument" and is "(1) effective as of the effective date of the recorded original instrument of conveyance; (2) prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the correction instrument; (3) presumed to be true; (4) subject to rebuttal; and (5) notice to a subsequent buyer of the facts stated in the correction instrument." Id. § 5.030(a) – (b). Correction instruments may be used to correct both material and non-material errors. See id. §§ 5.028 (pertaining to non-material errors), 5.029 (pertaining to material errors).

4 See also Tanya L. McCabe Trust v. Ranger Energy, LLC , 531 S.W.3d 783, 794 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (noting that the correction-instrument statutes were added to the Property Code in 2011 in response to this Court's decision in Myrad Properties, Inc. v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n , 300 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2009), which addressed the limited scope of correction instruments in the real-estate context).

The error here is material, and thus the correction instrument must comply with 5.029. That section provides in pertinent part that an instrument to correct a material error "must be":

(1) executed by each party to the recorded original instrument of conveyance the correction instrument is executed to correct or, if applicable , a party's heirs, successors, or assigns; and

(2) recorded in each county in which the original instrument of conveyance that is being corrected is recorded.

Id. § 5.029(b) (emphasis added). Thus, an instrument intended to correct a material mistake must be executed by each party to the original transaction, or by an appropriate alternate, and recorded in the relevant county to be a valid "substitute for the original instrument." Id. § 5.030(b).

The dispute here is about when a party's heirs, successors, or assigns are "applicable," such that their signatures are necessary to validate a material correction under the statute. The Bank argues that "a party's heirs, successors, or assigns" are merely substitutes whose signatures are unnecessary unless an original party is unavailable to execute the correction instrument. Yates responds that it is not the agreement of the original parties to the mistake that controls who must sign, but rather who controls the property at the time of the proposed correction. Thus, if an heir, successor, or assign acquires an interest in the property before a correction instrument is properly executed and recorded, Yates contends, such an acquiring third party must join in the instrument to validate a material correction.

The court of appeals agreed with Yates. The court construed "or, if applicable" as a conditional clause, separating the statute's primary and alternative options as to who should sign and triggered by any transfer of ownership. 609 S.W.3d at 148. Because the phrase was not otherwise defined in the statute, the court relied on the common meaning of its words, reading "or" as "a disjunctive conjunction used ‘to link alternatives’ " and "if applicable" as "a conditional clause meant to apply when appropriate or relevant." Id. (quoting WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 76, 865, & 1232 (2002)). The court then reasoned that "which of the two separate ways a correction instrument making a material change must be executed depends on whether the condition outlined by the ‘if applicable’ provision is triggered." Id. Finally, the court concluded that anyone who acquired a property interest in the original conveyance—whether as an original party's heir, successor, or assign—was relevant and appropriate to sign the correction instrument:

We hold the provision is triggered and a correction instrument making a material change must be executed by a party's heirs, successors, or assigns, as opposed to the original parties of the recorded instrument, if the property interest conveyed in the original instrument has been assigned or conveyed by an original party to that party's heirs, successors, or assigns.

Id. It was, the court explained, the current ownership interest of John's assigns (Yates's assignees) that made them "relevant parties who were required to sign" the correction instrument. Id.

III. Material Corrections under Section 5.029

The Bank contends that a correction deed signed by all parties to the original deed is valid under 5.029, even though one of them no longer owns the property or others have acquired an interest. The Bank submits that 5.029 plainly permits the parties to an original conveyance to correct a material mistake, without having to resort to litigation. It also agrees that the statute allows for third parties to sign a correction instrument under certain circumstances. But the use of "or" indicates that, while permissible substitutes, those other parties are not necessary if all the original parties agree to correct their mistake. The Bank thus objects to the court of appeals' interpretive leap from the potential relevance of a third party to the original conveyance to a statutory requirement that such party sign the correction instrument. See id. ("John's successors and assigns were current interest holders at the time the 2013 Amended Correction Deed was executed; in other words, they were relevant parties who were required to sign the new deed.").

Whether 5.029 authorizes the original parties to the conveyance to correct a material error in a deed, or requires the joinder of others who subsequently acquire interests in the property, is a matter of statutory construction. Such matters are legal questions that we review de novo. Galbraith Eng'g Consultants, Inc. v. Pochucha , 290 S.W.3d 863, 867 (Tex. 2009). Our objective in construing a statute is to effectuate the Legislature's intent as we find it in the statute's text. Id. ; see also Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc. , 996 S.W.2d 864, 865–66 (Tex. 1999) (noting that the Legislature's words are the best guide to its intent). We do not consider statutory provisions in isolation but rather seek their meaning from the statute as a whole. Janvey v. Golf Channel, Inc. , 487 S.W.3d 560, 572 (Tex. 2016). We further "presume the Legislature included each word in the statute for a purpose and that words not included were purposefully omitted." Lippincott v. Whisenhunt , 462 S.W.3d 507, 509 (Tex. 2015) (per curiam). We rely on the plain meaning of the text "unless a different meaning is apparent from the context or the plain meaning leads to absurd or nonsensical results." Molinet v. Kimbrell , 356 S.W.3d 407, 411 (Tex. 2011). We apply any definitions the statute supplies, but if a term is not defined, we "interpret the term according to its ordinary meaning." Tex. Dep't of Crim. Just. v. Rangel , 595 S.W.3d 198, 208 (Tex. 2020).

Not surprisingly, the statute here does not define "or" or "if applicable." The court of appeals accordingly consulted a dictionary for the commonly understood meaning of these words. We do so as well. "Or" is "used as a function word to indicate (1) an alternative between different or unlike things, states, or actions," "(2) choice between alternative things, states, or courses," or "(3) the synonymous, equivalent, or substitute character of two words or phrases." Or , WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY , UNABRIDGED (ONLINE) (2021). Consistent with that definition, this Court has recognized that "or" is typically understood as a disjunctive term, meaning that either of the separated words or phrases may be employed without the other. See, e.g., Abutahoun v. Dow Chem. Co. , 463 S.W.3d 42, 49 (Tex. 2015) (interpreting "or" as indicating separate prongs in the Tort Claims Act's phrase "condition or use," either of which may be used to demonstrate a waiver of sovereign immunity); Spradlin v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc. , 34 S.W.3d 578, 581 (Tex. 2000) (noting that separating two phrases with the conjunction "or" "signifies a separation between two distinct ideas"). "Applicable" is defined as "capable of being applied; having relevance" and "fit, suitable, or right to be applied." Applicable , WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY , UNABRIDGED (ONLINE) (2021). Thus, we generally agree with the court of appeals that "if applicable" conditionally introduces the phrase "heirs, successors, or assigns," signaling that the phrase is meant to apply when relevant or appropriate.

The parties also have no apparent disagreement over the ordinary meaning of these words. They agree that an original party's "heirs, successors, or assigns" may execute a correction instrument, instead of the original party, when relevant and appropriate. But they disagree about what makes an original party's "heirs, successors, or assigns" relevant and thus an appropriate party to sign the correction instrument.

The Bank argues that the alternates are irrelevant when an original party is available and signs the correction instrument. It further submits that the original parties are the statute's primary alternative because they are in the best position to know the true intent of the original instrument. The court of appeals disagreed, however, holding that title to the property should determine relevance and who must sign. 609 S.W.3d at 148. The court reasoned that if an heir, successor, or assign of an original party exists, it is the appropriate party to sign a correction instrument under 5.029. Id. The appellate court thus views the "or, if applicable" phrase as a triggering provision in which the original parties must sign the correction instrument so long as there are no heirs, successors, or assigns; but if there are heirs, successors, or assigns, then the "if applicable" provision is triggered, and the relevant alternates must sign the correction instrument. The Bank complains that the statutory text does not support the court of appeals' preference for the joinder of alternates merely because they exist. We agree to the extent that nothing in the text of 5.029 indicates a preference one way or the other: Either that the Legislature intended for the original parties to sign, if they were available, or that it intended for an alternate to sign, once the alternate acquired an interest in the original conveyance. If the Legislature's intent was the latter, however, the Bank reasonably questions why it chose "if applicable" to express that intention, instead of a simply providing that correction deeds must include the signatures of all current property owners. The court of appeals, however, was persuaded to that view by a concern that the Bank's "interpretation would render the conditional clause, ‘if applicable,’ meaningless." Id.

Whether the "if applicable" phrase is triggered by the transfer of title or by the absence of an original party makes no difference when the alternative is the original party's heirs or successors.⁵ Under either scenario, the original party is not available to execute a correction instrument and title is held by another. Thus, either party's interpretation is satisfied and neither renders the conditional clause meaningless. However, an original party's assignment of an interest in the property presents a different situation because the original party may remain available to correct a material mistake in the original conveyance. Certainly, the existence of a subsequently acquired interest in the original conveyance is a common thread among these alternatives, but only in the instance of an assignment does a choice arise. Assuming that the statute requires that a choice be made, what in the statute's text makes the assign the prevailing choice?

5 The Legislature has defined the term "heir" to mean "a person who is entitled under the statutes of descent and distribution to a part of the estate of a decedent who dies intestate," including the "decedent's surviving spouse." Tex. Est. Code § 22.015. Corporations and other business entities do not have heirs, but they can have successors. In the classic sense of the term, the "successor" of a business entity is not an assignee, but rather refers to rights and obligations transferred by merger, consolidation, or other legal succession. Enchanted Ests. Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Timberlake Improvement Dist. , 832 S.W.2d 800, 802 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ). Individuals, on the other hand, have heirs but are not ordinarily thought of having successors. But see Howell v. Murray Mortg. Co. , 890 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1994, writ denied) (noting that in common parlance successor means anyone who follows and when used as a legal term applying to a natural person may refer to an estate administrator or other legal representative). The term's meaning "when used in a contract, depends largely on the kind and character of the contract, its purposes and circumstances, and context." Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Primo , 512 S.W.3d 890, 894 (Tex. 2017) (citation omitted). In the context of this statute, the term "successors" fills the gap between "heirs" and "assigns," covering entities and legal representatives who succeed an original party other than as an heir or assign.

The text of 5.029 merely provides that "the parties to the original transaction or the parties' heirs, successors, or assigns, as applicable may execute a correction instrument to make a material correction" and that the correction instrument "must be executed by [the original parties] or, if applicable, a party's heirs, successors, or assigns." TEX. PROP. CODE § 5.029(a), (b)(1). Nothing in this text indicates that an assign must assent to a correction instrument when each party to the original conveyance is available to correct their mistake by executing a correction instrument. Rather, when read along with the disjunctive "or," "if applicable" simply emphasizes that the phrase "party's heirs, successors, or assigns" may be relevant when the original party is unavailable and, in that case, may serve as a substitute. See id. Accordingly, section 5.029 is satisfied when all the original parties agree to sign the correction instrument. Because this section provides for unanimous agreement among the parties to an original conveyance as a means to correct a material error and does not otherwise provide that the existence of an assign must supersede or replace that method, we conclude that the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute requires the joinder of assigns to validate the correction instrument.

But Yates submits that underlying the court of appeals' application of the material-correction statute is the common-sense notion that a correction deed that affects the interests of current title holders should not be effective unless signed by the current owners. Indeed, implicit in the court of appeals' preference for the assigns of an original party is the court's apparent concern about protecting the interests of subsequent purchasers.

The Bank concedes that this is a legitimate concern as well, but complains that the appellate court has erroneously addressed it. Rather than curtail who can execute a valid correction instrument under 5.029, the court should have turned to section 5.030, which is the Legislature's response to that concern. When properly construed, the Bank maintains, these provisions authorize a correction deed signed by all parties to the original deed under section 5.029, even if one of them no longer owns the property, but subjects the correction instrument to the interests of innocent purchasers under section 5.030.

As a contextual matter, we interpret related provisions in light of the statutory scheme as a whole. Fort Worth Transp. Auth. v. Rodriguez , 547 S.W.3d 830, 838 (Tex. 2018). The correction-instrument statutes generally provide that a compliant correction instrument may be used to correct an "ambiguity or error that relates to the description of or extent of the interest conveyed." TEX. PROP. CODE § 5.027(a). These statutes also generally incorporate the protections of the recording statute by subjecting correction instruments to section 13.001 of the Property Code. Id. § 5.027(c). Under section 13.001, "[a] conveyance of real property or an interest in real property ... is void as to" a bona fide purchaser "unless the instrument has been acknowledged, sworn to, or proved and filed for record as required by law." Id. § 13.001(a). Section 13.001 further states that an "unrecorded instrument is binding" only "on a party to the instrument, on the party's heirs," and on subsequent purchasers who are not bona fide purchasers. Id. § 13.001(b). A bona fide purchaser is one who "acquire[s] property in good faith, for value, and without notice of any third-party claim or interest." Madison v. Gordon , 39 S.W.3d 604, 606 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam). "Notice may be constructive or actual." Id. Thus, if a correction instrument is not recorded before a bona fide purchaser obtains an affected property interest, sections 5.027 and 13.001 provide that the correction instrument has no effect on the bona fide purchaser. See id.

Once a correction instrument has the requisite signatures and is recorded, however, it is "effective as of the effective date of the recorded original instrument of conveyance." Id. § 5.030(a)(1). That means that a properly executed correction instrument, when recorded, "replaces and is a substitute for the original instrument." Id. § 5.030(b).⁶ But consistent with section 13.001's protections for bona fide purchasers, one notable exception to section 5.030's retroactive effect exists: "A correction instrument is subject to the property interest of a" bona fide purchaser that was "acquired on or after the date the original instrument" was recorded "and before the correction instrument" was recorded. Id. § 5.030(c). Thus, even when a correction instrument is properly executed and recorded, a bona fide purchaser's property interest still controls if the purchaser acquired its interest prior to the correction instrument being recorded. See id. (protecting the property interest of a "subsequent purchaser for valuable consideration without notice").

6 Section 5.030(b) further states that bona fide purchasers "may rely on the [correction] instrument against any persons making an adverse or inconsistent claim." Tex. Prop. Code § 5.030(b).

Taken together, these provisions indicate that original parties to a deed can effectuate a correction instrument under 5.029 without the signatures of subsequent purchasers or current property owners. See id. §§ 5.027, .030, & 13.001. If bona fide purchasers—as current property owners—were otherwise required to sign a correction instrument for it to take effect, the protection for bona fide purchasers afforded by those sections would be pointless. After all, those protections are necessary only when a bona fide purchaser has not consented to the change but still is affected by it—a situation that may occur when the original parties to an instrument all sign on to a correction instrument. That aligns with the important policy consideration of providing title stability to innocent purchasers. Thus, the statutory scheme contemplates that original parties can effectuate a correction instrument without the signatures of the current property owners. See Rodriguez , 547 S.W.3d at 838 ("When interpreting each provision, we must consider the statutory scheme as a whole.").

The Legislature could have written 5.029 to require that all current owners of the property must sign a correction instrument, but that is not what it says. And while 5.029 certainly permits an original party's "heirs, successors, or assigns" to sign a correction instrument if the original party is unavailable, the statute plainly does not require that they do so when the original parties all execute the correction. The statute's plain language and the Property Code's encompassing scheme, confirm that section 5.029(b)(1) is satisfied when all parties to the original transaction agree to correct a material mistake in the original conveyance. Because the 2013 Amended Correction Deed was executed and recorded in conformity with the Property Code, the court of appeals erred in declaring the correction instrument invalid. See TEX. PROP. CODE § 5.029(b).

IV. Limitations

Yates and its assignees argue in the alternative that the Bank's lawsuit here is barred by limitations. Yates submits that the underlying litigation is in substance a suit to reform the 2005 Mineral Deed to which a four-year statute of limitations applies. According to Yates, that four-year period began to run when the Bank executed the 2005 Deed and thus expired long before the Bank commenced this litigation. Yates complains that the Bank has been allowed to circumvent limitations by nominally pleading their suit as a declaratory judgment action to construe the validity of the 2013 Correction Deed, when in substance it is a time-barred suit to reform the 2005 Mineral Deed. See Cosgrove v. Cade , 468 S.W.3d 32, 35 (Tex. 2015) (applying the residual limitations period to deed-reformation claims); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.051 ("Every action for which there is no express limitations period, except an action for the recovery of real property, must be brought not later than four years after the day the cause of action accrues.").

While we agree that the residual, four-year statute of limitations applies to reformation suits, we do not agree that the Bank's action here was such a suit. Causes of action and self-help provisions are not interchangeable concepts. A distinction thus exists between (1) seeking the judicial remedy of deed reformation and (2) voluntarily seeking to correct a deed by agreement. Parties attempting the latter are not limited to doing so within four years of their mistake. See, e.g., Garcia v. Reverse Mortg. Sols., Inc. , No 04-18-00736-CV, 2019 WL 2996971, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2019, no pet.) (holding that Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.051 "does not apply to a party filing a corrected instrument in the county's public records" pursuant to Tex. Prop. Code § 5.029 ). Neither section 5.027, which pertains to correction instruments generally, nor sections 5.029 and 5.030, which pertain to material-correction instruments and their effect, mention any such time constraint. See Silguero v. CSL Plasma, Inc. , 579 S.W.3d 53, 59 (Tex. 2019) (noting the presumption that legislative omissions are purposeful). The Property Code does not require that parties correcting an instrument pursuant to 5.029 do so within four years of the mistake.

Nor does the residual statute of limitations provision suggest anything different. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.051 ("Every action for which there is no express limitations period ... must be brought not later than four years after the day the cause of action accrues."). That provision applies only to an "action," that is, "a cause of action subject to the statute of limitations;" it does not apply to a self-help remedy to correct an instrument outside the judicial system. See Yowell v. Granite Operating Co. , 620 S.W.3d 335, 352 (Tex. 2020); No. 18-0841 (Tex. May 15, 2020) (holding a statutory "instruction to courts" is not "a cause of action subject to a statute of limitations"). Indeed, the very purpose of enacting section 5.029 was to allow parties to correct deeds without invoking the judicial process. See TEX. PROP. CODE § 5.029 ; see also Myrad Props., Inc. , 300 S.W.3d at 749–50 (noting the limitations for a consensual correction of a material mistake in a deed outside the judicial remedies of reformation and rescission); Tanya L. McCabe Trust , 531 S.W.3d at 794 (observing that the addition of the correction-instrument statutes to the Property Code in 2011 was in response to this Court's decision in Myrad addressing the limited scope of such instruments).

Yates, however, points to our decision in Cosgrove v. Cade , 468 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. 2015), for the notion that, at bottom, the claim here is one for reformation that is time barred. In that case, sellers sued buyer over a land transaction. The sales contract stated that sellers retained all mineral rights, but the deed mistakenly conveyed the property in fee. Id. at 35. Over four years after executing the deed, seller demanded that buyer issue a correction deed, pointing to one of the closing documents that bound the parties to "fully cooperate, adjust, and correct any errors or omissions and to execute any and all documents needed or necessary to comply with all provisions of the [sales contract]." Id. Buyer refused to correct the deed, and sellers sued, seeking "a declaratory judgment that [sellers] owned the mineral interests" based on the closing documents' requirement for cooperation in correcting errors. Id.

We held that the sellers' claims were time barred. Noting that "[a] plainly evident omission on an unambiguous deed's face is not a type of injury for which the" statute of limitations would be tolled, we concluded that the sellers' deed-reformation claim was too late. Id. at 36–37. Similarly, we held that sellers' contract claim was barred because sellers "were charged with notice—as a matter of law and upon execution of the deed—that the deed failed to retain their mineral rights." Id. at 40. "To hold otherwise," we said, "would circumvent the statute of limitations by allowing an open-ended breach of contract claim that would defy," among other things, our holdings regarding tolling and deed-reformation claims. Id. at 39.

Like the sellers in Cosgrove , Yates submits that the Bank has tried to revive a barred claim to reform a deed by characterizing it as something else. But Cosgrove is readily distinguishable because no correction deed existed in that case for the court to construe. The suit in Cosgrove was not about the validity of a correction instrument but about the buyer's refusal to agree to a correction based on time-barred claims for breach of contract and reformation.

Critically, the Bank does not seek to reform the 2005 Deed through the judicial process but rather to avail itself of a non-judicial, statutory process. See TEX. PROP. CODE §§ 5.027 –.031 (the correction-instrument statutes). By enacting Property Code section 5.029, the Legislature gave parties the ability to correct material mistakes in their deeds without resorting to lawsuits for reformation or rescission. Enforcing a correction instrument that complies with the Property Code therefore is not a judicial reformation of the original conveyance. If the Trustee and other parties to the original conveyance have properly executed the correction, they have themselves replaced the original deed and substituted the correction. Id. § 5.030(b). Section 5.029 thus provides the basis for the declaratory action here, but the statute does not require the parties correcting an instrument do so within four years of their mistake. We accordingly reject Yates's argument that the Trustee's suit to construe the Property Code's correction-instrument provisions and determine the validity of the 2013 Correction Deed was in substance a deed-reformation suit, subject to the residual, four-year statute of limitations.

V. Innocent Purchasers

Some of the parties who acquired their interests from John through Yates seek a remand to the court of appeals to consider an argument not addressed in that court. They argued there that, even if the 2013 correction deed were valid, their subsequently acquired property interests were protected under section 5.030 because of their status as bona fide purchasers. The court of appeals considered the issue to be immaterial after determining the correction instrument invalid under section 5.029. But because we disagree with the court's reading of 5.029, the argument is no longer immaterial and should be considered. We accordingly remand to the court of appeals for it to consider the parties' arguments in light of the summary judgment ruling that neither Yates nor its assigns are bona fide purchasers.

* * * * *

In summary, we hold that the original parties to a recorded original instrument of conveyance may validly execute a correction instrument under section 5.029, even after a third party has acquired an interest in the original transaction. And although 5.029 permits an original party's "heirs, successors, or assigns" to sign a correction instrument "if applicable," the statute does not require that they do so when the original parties all execute the correction. Id. § 5.029(b)(1). A validly executed correction instrument replaces and is a substitute for the original instrument, but the correction may not affect the property interest of a bona fide purchaser. Id. § 5.030(b) – (c). Thus, to the extent that John's assigns are able to establish their status as bona fide purchasers, their interests are protected.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Justice Busby filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Guzman, Justice Lehrmann, and Justice Blacklock joined.

Justice Busby, joined by Justice Guzman, Justice Lehrmann, and Justice Blacklock, dissenting.

Deeds conveying real property sometimes contain mistakes. To lessen the need for costly litigation to fix them, the Legislature authorized the parties to a recorded deed to correct an ambiguity or error by agreement if they follow certain rules. But what if the original parties to the deed no longer have any interest in the property? Recognizing the potential for abuse if those who no longer own property can retroactively change what they parted with, the Legislature provided that a material correction "must be ... executed by each [original] party ... or, if applicable, a party's heirs, successors, or assigns." TEX. PROP. CODE § 5.029(b).

Today, the Court reads the words "if applicable" out of the statute, allowing the original parties to alter a deed without even giving notice to the assignees who currently own the property. In other words, the Court believes that the Legislature empowered former owners to strip current owners of their property without notice, much less their assent to a correction—that is, without due course of law.

The Legislature did no such thing. The plain language of the statute requires an assign to execute the deed "if applicable," and an assignment made the assignees applicable parties to any correction. If this language were not clear enough, surrounding statutory provisions and common-law principles confirm that an original party who assigned its entire interest cannot defeat the rights of its assignee. The Court's approach is also contrary to the Texas Title Examination Standards and will destabilize our record title system. I therefore respectfully dissent.

I. The plain language of section 5.029 requires the signature of the owner of the property interest affected by a correction instrument.

As the Court explains, petitioner Broadway Bank (as trustee) conveyed mineral interests to John Evers in fee simple in 2005, and John conveyed the same interests to respondent Yates Energy in 2012. Ante at ––––. Yates Energy then assigned its interests to several parties, including EOG Resources, Inc., who received 70%. Ante at ––––.

In 2013, Broadway Bank and John executed a correction deed showing that Broadway had conveyed only a life estate to John. Ante at ––––. If effective, this instrument would mean that EOG and the other Yates Energy assignees kept their interests only until John died, which he did only a few months after he joined in executing the correction instrument. The question here is whether that correction is effective given that it was signed by Broadway and John, but not by the assignees owning the interests at the time the correction instrument was executed. Section 5.029(b)(1) of the Texas Property Code requires a correction instrument to be "executed by each party to the recorded original instrument of conveyance the correction instrument is executed to correct or, if applicable, a party's heirs, successors, or assigns." Similarly, subsection (a) provides that "the parties to the original transaction or the parties' heirs, successors, or assigns, as applicable may execute" the instrument. TEX. PROP. CODE § 5.029(a). Thus, the Legislature did not conclude that original parties can best correct errors; if it had, it would not have mentioned the parties' heirs, successors, or assigns. The issue before us is when an assignee becomes "applicable" and must execute the correction.

The Court reads these provisions to allow original parties to a conveyance to execute a correction instrument in any event, regardless of whether the original grantee has assigned the property. It sees "[n]othing in this text indicat[ing] that an assign must assent to a correction instrument when each party to the original conveyance is available to correct their mistake by executing a correction instrument." Ante at 25.

But as Yates argues, the phrase "if applicable" indicates precisely that: it tells us that the assigns of an original party must sign if theirs is the interest affected. The Court reads this phrase merely to "emphasize[ ]" that an original party's heirs, successors, or assigns "may be relevant when the original party is unavailable and, in that case, may serve as a substitute." Ante at 26. If that is really what including the phrase "if applicable" tells us, then those words tell us nothing at all. The same result follows if the two words are deleted altogether.

Specifically, if the statute provided that "a correction instrument must be executed by each original party or by a party's heirs, successors, or assigns," we would reach the same result the Court reaches today. That is, the heirs, successors, or assigns could serve as substitutes for the original parties when the original parties are unavailable. We do not need the phrase "if applicable" to tell us this because the "or" already does so. The assigns are potential substitutes even if the phrase "if applicable" is absent, so the Court effectively reads that phrase out of the statute. Because the Legislature has included the phrase "if applicable," we must give effect to it as part of the entire statute, treating none of its language as surplusage. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 311.021(2) ; Spradlin v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc. , 34 S.W.3d 578, 580 (Tex. 2000).

The Court not only reads out some of the words chosen by the Legislature, it rewrites others, changing "an assign must execute if applicable" to say "the original party must execute unless it is no longer available."¹ But in the actual text of the statute, "applicable" modifies assign—not original party—and there is no mention of availability. Who must execute the correction instrument turns on the applicability of the assigns, not the availability of the original parties.

1 Ante at 26 (concluding assign may serve as substitute "when the original party is unavailable"); 27 (explaining statute permits assign to sign correction "if the original party is unavailable").

Read as a whole, the statute not only presents two alternatives, it tells us when to choose each. The use of "or" here signals a compound subject (original parties or their heirs, successors, or assigns). As there is a single predicate (must execute the correction), it attaches to each subject alternatively. Consider the Speedy Trial Act, which formerly read: "[t]he failure of a defendant to move for discharge under provisions of this article prior to trial or the entry of a plea of guilty constitutes a waiver of the rights accorded by this article."² Courts noted that "failure" and "entry" were "compound subjects" and that the right to a speedy trial could be waived in two ways: defendants could waive the right by failing to move for discharge, or defendants could waive the right by entering a guilty plea. Martinez v. State , 646 S.W.2d 483, 485 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no pet.) (citing Wooten v. State , 612 S.W.2d 561 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) ).

2 Act of May 20, 1977, 65th Leg., R.S., ch. 787, § 1, 1977 Tex. Gen. Laws 1970, amended by Act of Feb. 14, 1979, 66th Leg., R.S. ch. 3, § 1, 1979 Tex. Gen. Laws 4, amended by Act of May 22, 1987, 70th Leg., R.S., ch. 383, § 2, 1987 Tex. Gen. Laws 1885, repealed by Act of May 19, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 1019, § 2, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3464.

Martinez reminds us that for compound subjects connected by "and" or "or," the predicate attaches to each of the subjects. This grammatical function makes it unnecessary to write out the predicate twice when the same idea can be expressed in fewer words by writing it only once. The Legislature relies on that function here by using a compound subject with a single predicate. See TEX. PROP. CODE § 5.029(b)(1). Given the Court's detailed discussion of the meaning of this statute, it is worth scrutinizing the compound subject it relies on to convey its meaning. Considering the use of that compound subject, the statute can be literally read: a correction instrument must be executed by each party to the recorded original instrument of conveyance the correction instrument is executed to correct or, if applicable, a correction instrument must be executed by a party's heirs, successors, or assigns.

The only difference between this reading and the codified version is that the codified version takes a grammatical shortcut with no loss in meaning. Simpler sentences illustrate the concept better. Instead of writing, "John will pick you up from the doctor, or Mary will pick you up from the doctor," we might use a compound subject: "John or Mary will pick you up from the doctor." These sentences say the same thing using the same words, but the compound subject keeps some of these words from being repeated, even when the meaning of these words attaches to both subjects.

Section 5.029 tells us that one of two things will happen: either the original parties must execute the correction instrument, or the assigns of an original party must execute the correction instrument instead of that party. The Court says that the original parties must do so if they are available and if not, the assigns can step in. The Court might be correct if the statute simply provided that either original parties "or" assigns could execute the instrument. Adding the phrase "if applicable," however, tells us that the assigns must sign if they are applicable.

The Court does not ignore the "if applicable" phrase but seeks to define it away, observing that "applicable" means "capable of being applied." Ante at 24. This definition only confirms what we see in looking at the word: it is derived from the verb "apply" through suffixation. The definition is circular in relying on a root word to define a word derived from that root. Instead, we must know the definition of "apply" to determine what "applicable" means.

In this context, "apply" means "to have relevance or a valid connection."³ Using this definition in section 5.029(b), we see that the original parties to a conveyance must execute the correction instrument or, if the assigns of an original party have relevance or a valid connection to the conveyance, they must do so in place of that original party. The remaining question is when the assigns of an original party have relevance or a valid connection to the conveyance. The answer must be that this is true when, and only when, the assigns own an interest affected by the correction instrument. In particular, assigns have a connection when the instrument modifies their property interest. When the correction instrument modifies only the property interests of others, the assigns cannot execute it: they have no interest in property held by others and, as explained below, cannot modify such a property interest.

3 Apply , Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apply (last visited May 4, 2021).

Other statutes with a substantially similar structure confirm this reading. When a statute uses the modal verb "must," a compound subject joined by "or," and a condition introduced by "if applicable" or "as applicable," the statute does not contemplate interchangeable alternatives. Instead, it signals when one alternative applies and, in that event, the other does not.⁴ The Court's interpretation applies equally to these statutes, and it makes many of them nonsensical.

4 E.g. , Tex. Prop. Code § 209.015(c) ("An owner must obtain the approval of the property owners' association or, if applicable, an architectural committee established by the association or the association's dedicatory instruments....") (requiring approval first from an architectural committee if there is one); Tex. Agric. Code § 104.002 ("A contract between a producer and a purchaser regarding an agricultural product must clearly and conspicuously state on its face that it is an acreage contract or a quantity contract, as applicable.") (where contract must be for one or the other); Tex. Educ. Code § 11.1516(b)(1) ("The Internet website must include district information, disaggregated by campus, grade, sex, race, academic quarter or semester, as applicable....") (where the district runs either on semesters or quarters); id. § 12.155 ("The name of a college or university charter school or junior college charter school must include the name of the public senior college or university or public junior college, as applicable, operating the school.") (where the operator can only fall into one of the categories); id. § 22.004(h) ("An audited financial statement provided under this section must be made in accordance with rules adopted by the commissioner of insurance or with generally accepted accounting principles, as applicable.") (where on-point rules must be followed if there are any, and generally accepted principles otherwise); id. § 44.004(c)(2) ("The notice of a public meeting ... must show the difference, expressed as a percent increase or decrease, as applicable, in the amounts budgeted for the preceding fiscal year and the amount budgeted for the fiscal year that begins in the current tax year....") (where the difference will be either an increase or a decrease); id. § 54.5192(f)(1) ("The ballot proposition for an election to approve a proposed initial fee under Subsection (d) or a proposed fee increase under Subsection (e) must clearly state the amount of the proposed fee or fee increase, as applicable....") (depending on whether a new fee or change to an existing fee is proposed); Tex. Gov't Code § 304.004(a) ("Each individual designated must meet age and residence requirements for a senator or representative, as applicable....") (where each individual is designated as an emergency successor either for a state senator or a state representative); id. § 304.004(d) ("The secretary of the senate or chief clerk of the house, as applicable, shall promptly deliver a certified copy of each revision [to a legislator's list of emergency successors] and of any accompanying acceptance to the secretary of state.") (depending on whether the legislator is a senator or representative); id. § 411.181(a-1) ("The duplicate license must provide for an expiration date, calculated in accordance with Section 411.183(a) or (b), as applicable....") (where subsection 411.183(a) applies to licenses and 411.183(b) to renewed licenses); id. § 411.356 ("Before requesting activation of the alert system, a local law enforcement agency must verify that the criteria described by Section 411.355(a) or (b), as applicable, have been satisfied.") (where section 411.355(a) deals with alerts for abducted children and 411.355(b) missing persons with an intellectual disability); id. § 659.104(a) ("An authorization for a deduction under this subchapter must direct the comptroller or, if applicable, the appropriate financial officer of an institution of higher education to transfer the withheld funds....") (depending on whether the state agency is an institution of higher education); id. § 805.003 ("All payments for service credit reinstated or purchased under section 805.002 must be made before retirement or the first payment of a death benefit annuity, as applicable....") (where payment must precede a death-benefit annuity payment only if death precedes retirement); id. § 1371.053(b)(1) ("The obligation authorization must establish: the maximum amount of the obligation to be issued or, if applicable, the maximum principal amount that may be outstanding at any time....") (depending on whether a fixed or open-ended obligation is authorized); Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 242.0015(d) ("Not later than the 30th day after the date the county and the municipality are required to have an agreement in effect under Section 242.001(f), the arbitrator or arbitration panel, as applicable, must be selected.") (where the selection must be a single arbitrator or a panel, depending on what was agreed to); Tex. Spec. Dist. Code § 3792.0501 ("The district must hold an election in the manner provided by Chapter 49, Water Code, or, if applicable, Chapter 375, Local Government Code, to obtain voter approval before the district may impose an ad valorem tax.") (where the election procedures differ for general-law and municipal-management districts); Tex. Transp. Code § 504.305(b) ("The department shall issue license plates for active members of the Texas National Guard or Texas State Guard, retired members of the Texas National Guard or Texas State Guard, and members of a reserve component of the United States armed forces.... The license plates must include the words ‘Texas Guard’ or ‘Armed Forces Reserve,’ as applicable.") (where plates would read "Texas Guard" for active and retired members of the Texas National and State Guards and "Armed Forces Reserve" for members of a reserve component of the United States armed forces); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 24.12 ("The request must be filed with the clerk of the court and must include an affidavit of the attorney representing the state or the defendant, as applicable....") (where an attorney represents one but not both); id. art. 38.11(d) ("An application for a subpoena of a journalist ... must be signed by the elected district attorney, elected criminal district attorney, or elected county attorney, as applicable.") (depending on the title of the attorney representing the state in the matter).

For example, Broadway relies on section 209.015(c) of the Property Code as support for its reading that "if applicable" introduces a potential alternative but allows either alternative to substitute freely for the other. That section reads: "[a]n owner must obtain the approval of the property owners' association or, if applicable, an architectural committee established by the association or the association's dedicatory instruments." TEX. PROP. CODE § 209.015(c). Under the ordinary rules of grammar laid out above, this statute requires a homeowner to seek approval of new construction or improvements from an architectural committee if there is one. But under Broadway's interpretation, the homeowner is free to seek approval from the property owners' association instead. And under the Court's interpretation, the homeowner must seek approval from the association unless it is unavailable. Neither interpretation is grounded in the plain language of the statute or the dictionary definition of "applicable."

Broadway points to a procedure in the same chapter that allows the board of a homeowners' association to consider appeals from a denial of architectural committee approval. Id. § 209.0051(h)(7). To Broadway, this proves that homeowners can seek approval from either the architectural committee or property owner's association: if the association can review the committee's decision, why can the homeowners not start there? This appeals process, however, confirms my reading: homeowners must first seek approval from the architectural committee if there is one, and the association can later review the committee's decision. The provision of an appeals process in section 209.0051(h)(7) can only have meaning if this is so.

Section 209.015(c) of the Property Code is just one of many statutes in which the Legislature uses the modal verb "must," a compound subject, and the phrase "if applicable" or "as applicable" to signal that when one alternative is applicable, the other is not. We should follow that reading here. For these reasons, the plain text of section 5.029 shows that an original party's assigns must execute the correction instrument if they are the current owners of property affected by the correction.

II. An assignor cannot assert any rights it has assigned, so an original grantee of a conveyance cannot divest its assigns through a correction instrument.

Even if section 5.029 were ambiguous, the statutory context and the common law confirm that when an original grantee has assigned its interest, its assignee must execute the correction instrument.

Looking at the correction-instrument scheme as a whole, the Court's reading presents a disturbing anomaly: a current owner of property receives less protection when a material change is made under section 5.029 than when a nonmaterial change is made to correct a clerical error. Section 5.028 allows a party to make nonmaterial changes to a deed by executing a correction instrument without the consent of any other party, but to do so the party must provide notice to the current owner. But there are no notice protections for current owners whose property interest is actually altered by a material change in a correction instrument. Amicus Texas Land Title Association, for example, agrees with Broadway that the original parties can execute a correction instrument under section 5.029 even if one of them has conveyed its interest, but it acknowledges that legislation is necessary to add a notice provision to section 5.029 to protect current owners.

My reading, on the other hand, shows that the lack of a notice provision is no oddity at all: if the current owners of land materially affected by a correction instrument must execute the instrument, there is no gap in the Property Code. Sections 5.028 and 5.029 were enacted in the same bill.⁵ Instead of overlooking the need to repeat a notice requirement in a similar, adjacent section so that current owners know when they are being deprived of property, it is far more likely that the Legislature saw no need for such notice in section 5.029 because current owners must execute the instrument.

5 Act of May 13, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch. 194, § 1, 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws 747.

We also look to the common law for guidance in construing statutes. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 311.023(4). Under the common law, an assignee stands in the shoes of his assignor. Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf , 44 S.W.3d 562, 571–72 (Tex. 2001). In addition, an assignor loses all control over the property assigned and can do nothing to defeat the rights of its assignee. Johnson v. Structured Asset Servs., LLC , 148 S.W.3d 711, 722 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.) (citing Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Allan , 777 S.W.2d 450, 453 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no writ) ). Together, these complementary principles confirm that when an assignee is "applicable," the assignor cannot change what it assigned without the assignee's consent.

To illustrate, consider a case in which a hospital patient assigned her interest in insurance benefits to a hospital to pay for her surgery. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch , 777 S.W.2d at 452. The insurer paid the hospital directly for the surgery but later recovered the payment after determining the surgery was not a necessary medical procedure. Id. The patient sued the insurer for the benefits, and the insurer ultimately settled the claim. Id. This led the hospital to intervene, believing itself entitled to the settlement proceeds given the assignment. Id.

The court agreed with the hospital, explaining that "[t]he assignor, after an unqualified assignment and notice to the obligor, generally loses all control over the chose and can do nothing to defeat the rights of the assignee.... [T]he assignment was irrevocable and [the hospital patient] did not have the authority to prejudice or defeat [the hospital's] rights under the assignment." Id. at 453. The settlement proceeds were the hospital's all along: the patient merely held them in constructive trust on its behalf. Id.

Applying these principles here, an assignor cannot retroactively alter a property right it has already assigned in a manner that prejudices the rights of its assignee. Broadway conveyed an interest in fee simple to John Evers, and John conveyed that same interest to Yates Energy. When John did so, he kept nothing. John therefore had no control over the property interest he sought to modify when executing the correction instrument. Allowing him to defeat the rights of the assignee without consent or even notice is inconsistent with this basic tenet of assignment law.

In sum, even if the statute were unclear about whether John (an original party) can defeat the rights of his assignees by asserting property rights he no longer holds, the common law tells us he cannot. The common-law principle that an assignor loses control over the assigned property informs our construction of section 5.029 and confirms that John ceded all control over the mineral rights when he conveyed his interest to Yates Energy.⁶ See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 311.023(4).

6 The Legislature has displaced common-law limits on the scope of correction instruments, which we addressed in Myrad Properties, Inc. v. LaSalle Bank National Ass'n , 300 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2009). We held that correcting the mistaken omission of an entire parcel of land exceeded the narrow scope of the permissible uses of such a deed. Id. at 750, 753. In enacting the correction-instrument scheme addressed here, the Legislature broadened that scope to allow for such corrections. But the Legislature did not displace all common law regarding assignments and conveyances, so the principles addressed here help us discern who can sign a correction deed.

III. The Court's holding allows property owners to be stripped of their land without notice or consent and destabilizes the record title system.

Finally, if section 5.029 were ambiguous, we should consider the consequences of the competing constructions in deciding whether John can alter mineral rights that no longer belong to him. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 311.023(5). The Court declares that property owners can be retroactively divested of land or minerals without prior notice through an agreement between previous owners. Under the Court's rule, property owners must check public records routinely to see whether they have been stripped of their property and, if they have been, pursue litigation to recover it.

Broadway argues—and the Court agrees—that current property owners will receive protection from section 5.030(c) in these circumstances, but that protection does not alleviate the concerns that property owners must vigilantly inspect public records and pursue costly litigation to right any wrongs. Section 5.030(c) provides that correction instruments are

subject to the property interest of a creditor or subsequent purchaser for valuable consideration without notice acquired on or after the date the original instrument was acknowledged, sworn to, or proved and filed for record as required by law and before the correction instrument has been acknowledged, sworn to, or proved and filed as required by law.

But to say that a divested property owner would have a post-deprivation claim to recover its property as a bona fide purchaser does not explain why the owner should have to pursue the claim at all or why the status quo should be altered by stripping the owner of its property while litigation proceeds.

The Court's position places heavy burdens on property owners, but why should the burden be theirs? Current owners can do nothing to avoid the controversy: these parties have no power over the original grant between previous owners or the agreement between them to subsequently alter the scope of the property right. A party should not be burdened to litigate when it has no means of avoiding litigation, especially where the alternative is to place the burden on a party who can avoid litigation.

The original grantor and grantee—Broadway and John Evers in this case—could have avoided litigation by taking care with the original instrument. They are the ones who have the power to get it right the first time, and by requiring the current owner's assent to a material correction, they have another incentive to do so. This pressure on the original parties will prevent future litigation. E.g., Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. DeVries , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 986, 997, 203 L.Ed.2d 373 (2019) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting) ("[T]he traditional common law rule still makes the most sense today. The manufacturer of a product is in the best position to understand and warn users about its risks; in the language of law and economics, those who make products are generally the least-cost avoiders of their risks. By placing the duty to warn on a product's manufacturer, we force it to internalize the full cost of any injuries caused by inadequate warnings—and in that way ensure it is fully incentivized to provide adequate warnings."). Subsequent grantees can do nothing to prevent this problem, so there is nothing to gain from making it their burden.

Also, there is nothing in section 5.030(c) that will lessen each property owner's burden to monitor property records diligently. Instead, owners must do exactly that to receive notice of their divestiture and timely commence litigation so they may ultimately avail themselves of the protections in that section.⁷ Conversely, there is no burden to monitor these records if the current owner must execute the correction instrument. That burden disappears and the burden to litigate shifts to the original parties, who have the power to shape their behavior to avoid disputes in the first place.

7 In addition, under the Court's reading, current owners face the threat of litigation for failure to deliver marketable title when selling land affected by a correction instrument executed between the execution of a land-sale agreement and performance of the sale.

Moreover, the protection that section 5.030(c) provides to assignees—which the Court touts as mitigating the property-stripping impact of its reading of section 5.029—is incomplete at best. For example, section 5.030(c) does not appear to affect the statute of limitations for adverse possession. Nor does it say that an assignee who is a bona fide purchaser can recapture any revenue it loses from the property between the date a correction deed strips its interest without notice and the date a court orders that interest restored.⁸ And section 5.030(c) only protects purchasers and creditors, not assignees like John Evers who received their assignments by gift. Under the Court's holding, a donee who acquires a property interest by gratuitous assignment can be deprived of that property with impunity if the donor and the person from whom the donor originally acquired the property later decide to execute a correction deed.⁹

8 For example, if a mineral interest owner discovered that remote original parties had corrected a deed in its chain of title many years earlier so that it lost part of its interest and thus received no royalties from a well drilled on that part, would its claim to all but the last two years of those royalties be barred by the conversion statute of limitations for personal property? See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a) ; Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. West , 508 S.W.2d 812, 817 (Tex. 1974). Section 5.030(c) provides no answer.

9 For example, if Mary Evers as settlor of the trust and Broadway as trustee later executed a correction deed stating that the property the trust had gratuitously assigned to John was never actually given to the trust by Mary, then John would lose that property.

I also note that my interpretation of section 5.029, which requires assignees to execute a correction deed if it affects their current property interest, does not render section 5.030's limited protections for bona fide purchasers pointless. Cf. ante at ––––. Section 5.030 plays an important role by protecting creditors against corrections that are executed after they obtain their security interest in property. In addition, section 5.030 protects assignees who purchase property without notice of an executed but unrecorded correction instrument affecting that property.

I recognize, of course, that the original parties to the deed are likely to have better information about whether it contains a material error that should be corrected, so having them as the default required signers under section 5.029 has appeal from a policy perspective. But when weighed against the fundamental constitutional command that "No citizen of this State shall be deprived of ... property ... except by the due course of the law of the land,"¹⁰ it is no wonder that the Legislature made the policy choice grammatically indicated in section 5.029 : when an assignment is "applicable," either the assignee must also sign or a court must determine what the original parties' true intentions were.

10 Tex. Const. art. I, § 19.

Amicus Texas Land Title Association raises the concern that current owners who receive property knowing of a material mistake in the original conveyance might thwart the execution of a correction instrument in bad faith. But many holders of property interests will doubtless agree to fair corrections, as happened just this term in Concho Resources, Inc. v. Ellison , 627 S.W.3d 226, 230-32, No. 19-0233 (Tex. Apr. 16, 2021). In any event, the Association's concern is, at bottom, another version of the argument that the burden to litigate should be on current owners. In the scenario the Association envisions, the original grantor can still seek a judicial remedy and establish its equitable title to any property conveyed by mistake. The worst-case scenario from requiring current owners to assent to their divestiture, therefore, is that those few who acquired property knowing both a) that there is a material mistake up the chain of title and b) that the mistake has not been corrected must be haled into court. This is no disaster, especially considering the alternative. First, the consequence the Association raises is that the original parties will have the burden to pursue judicial remedies, but this is preferred when they are the only ones who could avoid mistakes in the first place.

Second, under the Court's rule, it is possible that an original grantor and grantee will execute a correction instrument in bad faith. For example, a grantor and grantee could underprice a land sale between them, have the grantee sell the property to a new buyer for more money, and later execute a correction instrument restoring some of the property to the original grantor. They can do so without notice to or consent from the current owner of the property, whose only protection is a judicial remedy that can be pursued only after careful inspection of local property records. Even if this outcome is unlikely, there is no reason to believe it would be any less prevalent than the scenario Broadway envisions, in which subsequent owners acquired property only to take advantage of a material mistake up the chain of title that had not been corrected. These outcomes are consequences we should consider in construing section 5.029. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 311.023(5).

Far more concerning than the rare party who can identify and purchase property conveyed by mistake in a previous instrument is the threat of divestiture faced by every land and mineral owner in Texas starting today—a threat that cannot be avoided without expensive diligence and judicial relief. To avert this threat, the Texas Title Examination Standards consider a correction instrument that materially alters a prior conveyance effective "only if joined by all parties whose interests are affected." Tex. Title Examination Standards, Standard 2.20, reprinted in TEX. PROP. CODE , tit. 2, app. These standards are not binding, but they are compiled by a board of experts in the title examination field and are intended to state fundamental and enduring principles that establish guidelines for conducting a reasonable and practical title examination. Id. Preface. Applied here, Standard 2.20 would require EOG and the other owners of the mineral rights at issue to execute the correction instrument. This standard is suddenly erroneous under the Court's opinion, further highlighting new instabilities within the record-title system. The precariousness of each property owner's title to its land is highlighted by this departure from established title examination practices.

Standard 2.20 expressly mentions sections 5.028 and 5.029 of the Property Code as well as our decision in Myrad . Id. It was published in 2014—three years after the correction-statute scheme was enacted—and cites section 5.029 to justify its caution that title examiners rely on correction instruments only if affected subsequent purchasers have joined in the execution of the instrument.

* * *

The considered expert judgment of Standard 2.20 confirms that if there is any statutory ambiguity regarding whether EOG and other current interest-holders were required to execute the correction instrument, the statutory scheme as a whole, the effects of the different constructions, common-law principles, and current industry practice all show that their signatures were required. Further, all these considerations align with the plain language of the statute. Because the Court draws the opposite conclusion and allows a prior owner of property to execute a correction instrument that strips the property from its current owner without notice or consent, I respectfully dissent.