Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas Trial
Court No. 13-09-00181-CVK Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice, Marialyn
Barnard, Justice, Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice.
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice.
and Lynette Jarzombek appeal a final judgment incorporating
an order granting a partial summary judgment in favor of
Ronald Craig Ramsey Jr. In the order granting the partial
summary judgment, the trial court ruled that all of the
Jarzombeks' claims against Ramsey were barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. The order became final
after all of the remaining parties' claims were dismissed
sole issue presented on appeal is whether the trial court
erred in concluding the discovery rule was not applicable to
toll the statute of limitations on the Jarzombeks' cause
of action for deed reformation. We affirm the trial
appeal, we must decide whether the discovery rule applies in
this case where the terms of the deed differ from the terms
in the associated contract for sale. Here, the Jarzombeks
owned the surface estate to two tracts of land consisting of
approximately 62.6 acres (Tract 1) and 64.8 acres (Tract 2).
With regard to the mineral estates, the Jarzombeks owned only
a 1/16th royalty interest in Tract 1, but they owned the
entire mineral estate in Tract 2.
August 21, 2006, the Jarzombeks and Ramsey executed a real
estate contract in which Ramsey agreed to purchase the
surface estate of both tracts. With regard to the mineral
estates, the contract provided as follows:
Seller to keep 1/2 of the mineral and royalty interest that
he currently owns for a period of 20 years. If there is
production of minerals during this period, then the seller
will continue to receive the royalties as long as there is
production. Seller to convey 1/2 of the mineral and royalty
interest that he owns to buyer at closing.
closing of the sale on November 16, 2006, the Jarzombeks
signed a warranty deed prepared by their attorney, which
conveyed both tracts to Ramsey with the following
SAVE and EXCEPT, and there is hereby reserved unto Grantor,
Grantor's heirs and assigns, an undivided
one-thirty-second (1/32) royalty interest in and to all of
the oil, gas and other minerals in and under and that may be
produced from the above described property, being one-half of
the interest owned by the Grantor. It is understood and
agreed that Grantor, Grantor's heirs and assigns, shall
not participate in the making of any oil, gas or mineral
lease covering said property, nor shall Grantor participate
in any bonus or bonuses which may be paid for any such lease,
nor shall Grantor participate in any rental or shut-in gas
well royalty to be paid under any such lease.
The interest hereby excepted and reserved shall continue in
effect for twenty (20) years from the date of this Deed and
as long thereafter as oil, gas and other minerals, or any of
them, is produced or mined from the land described in this
Deed, or from land with which any interest in the land
described herein is validly pooled, whether or not in paying
deed was filed in the real property records.
September 3, 2013, the Jarzombeks sued Ramsey and several
other defendants for numerous causes of action, including a
cause of action for deed reformation, alleging the deed
contained an error as a result of either a mutual mistake or
a unilateral mistake accompanied by inequitable conduct by
Ramsey. Ramsey's answer asserted the affirmative defense
of statute of limitations, and Ramsey subsequently filed a
motion for summary judgment asserting the Jarzombeks'
claims against him were barred by limitations. The
Jarzombeks' filed a response to Ramsey's motion,
asserting the discovery rule tolled the statute of
limitations. As previously noted, the trial court granted
summary judgment in favor of Ramsey, and the Jarzombeks
review a grant of a summary judgment de novo. Nassar v.
Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 508 S.W.3d 254, 257 (Tex.
2017). "[W]e take as true all evidence favorable to the
nonmovant, and we indulge every reasonable inference and
resolve any doubts in the nonmovant's favor."
Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Provident
Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211,
215 (Tex. 2003)). To succeed on a traditional motion for
summary judgment, the movant must establish "there is no
genuine issue as to any material ...