The Austin Court of Appeals has reversed a Travis County trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to transfer venue in a dispute over allegedly unpaid royalties on groundwater leases in Burleson and Milam Counties. The court held that the mandatory venue statute, § 15.011, CPRC, applies and dictates venue in Burleson, not Travis, County.
In re Blue Water Vista Ridge, LLC (No. 03-26-00048-CV; March 10, 2026) arose from a dispute between Carrizo-Wilcox Development Company and Blue Water over allegedly past-due royalty payments on certain groundwater leases under tracts in Burleson and Milam Counties. Carrizo sued Blue Water and Vista Ridge in Travis County alleging that it bought the groundwater interest of the original owner of the leases several years ago but had never received royalties from Blue Water, the lessee, or Vista Ridge, the sublessee. Carrizo asserted breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion of funds theories. Blue Water moved to transfer venue to Burleson County, where the majority of the property subject to the leases is located. Blue Water argued that since this matter “centers on disputed claims to title for real property and requires the adjudication of those disputed title claims to resolve the central dispute between the parties,” it should be transferred pursuant to § 15.011, CPRC. The trial court denied the motio.
After that, nothing happened for two years. In November 2024 a number of landowners filed suit against Carrizo and its owner in Burleson County, alleging that Defendants defrauded them and breached their fiduciary duty by making misrepresentations inducing them to convey their groundwater deeds to Carrizo. Carrizo moved to abate the case until the Travis County case was concluded or, alternatively, to consolidate the two cases. Blue Water moved for reconsideration of its motion to transfer venue, which the trial court again denied. Blue Water sought mandamus relief.
In an opinion by Justice Crump, the court of appeals granted Blue Water’s petition for writ of mandamus. The outcome rested on § 15.011, which establishes mandatory venue of actions affecting interests in real property in the county in which all or part of the propery is located. Nobody disputed that the affected property was located in Burleson County. The question was whether § 15.011 covered Carrizo’s claim for unpaid royalties. As the court observed, “[g]roundwater leases and leases are considered real property under Texas law, as are oil and gas interests and leases” (citations omitted). The court looked to the “nature of the suit,” based on “the facts alleged in the plaintiff’s petition, the rights asserted, and the relief sought.” Carrizo attempted to evade the application of § 15.011 and keep the case in Travis County by “artfully pleading” its case as a royalty case, when in fact it involved which parties were entitled to royalties from the leases. And to answer that question, the trial court must determine rightful ownership of the groundwater interests and leases. “If Blue Water prevails in proving that Carrizo is not the rightful owner and lessor of the subject groundwater rights and leases,” the court stated, “it will defeat Carrizo’s dependent claim to past royalties.”
Thus § 15.011 applies “[w]hen the underlying issue that a plaintiff must prove to show its entitlement to damages involves proof of the ownership rights to real-property interests (such as mineral interests or groundwater interests)” (citations omitted). That being the case here, venue was mandatory in Burleson County, and the trial court abused its discretion in denying Blue Water’s motion to transfer. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order and transfer the case.
