The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court judgment dismissing a royalty owner lawsuit against several producers because the owners didn’t comply with the court’s order to join all interest owners under Rule 39, TRCP.
Norman Ross Becken, et al. v. 1893 Oil & Gas, Ltd. and ELP2 Minerals, LLC (No. 13-23-00491-CV; October 9, 2025) arose over a royalty dispute based on a 1912 conveyance of 16,376 acres in Live Oak County. Green conveyed the property to Plympton, resulting in two surveys: the Mattison survey, consisting of about 2,092 acres, and the Hawley survey, consisting of about 1,061 acres. The Mattison survey was divided by about 564 deeds to various grantees, the Hawley survey by 189 deeds to various grantees. All deeds coveyed property for separate consideration. Plaintiffs are successors in interest to parcels of property emanating from the Mattison survey. They filed four separate lawsuits against Defendants and several others. They claimed they were entitled to disputed royalties in the Mattison and Hawley surveys and asserted trespass to try title, suit to quiet title, and monies had and received. They also sought a declaration that they were entitled to the disputed royalties and requested an accounting.
Defendants moved to compel joinder of all successors in interest under the Mattison survey, which the court granted. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration. Again, the trial court denied reconsideration and reiterated that if the additional parties were not joined, the trial court would dismiss the case. A few months later, the trial court signed a letter granting Defendants’ motions to consolidate the cases, motion to dismiss, and final judgment. Plaintiffs appealed.
In an opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina, the court of appeals affirmed. In Longoria v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 255 S.W.3d 174, 180 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 20028, pet. denied), the court observed, plaintiffs sued energy companies seeking to establish title to alleged mineral interests in a partially leased energy estate. Defendants moved to compel joinder to all persons having record title and royalty interests in the 9,200 acres at issue. Plaintiffs responded that they were simply trying to clear title to the mineral estate, not to claim any portion of the royalty interest owned by a non-party. The trial court dismissed the case for failure to join “absent mineral interest owners” as parties. TCRP 39 requires joinder if a person “‘claims an interest relating to a cause of action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in’ the person’s absence may ‘leave any of the persons already parties to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason[s]’ of the person’s claimed interest.” The rule gives trial courts broad discretion to determine whether to compel joinder under Rule 39, which may including “find[ing] that such a judgment could impair the absent lessors’ ability to convey royalty interests and possibilities of reverter they claim to own.”
Similar to the facts in Longoria, Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment and adjudication of title to their alleged interests in the entire Mattison survey. The absent parties likewise claimed title to the mineral interests in the survey. This case, consequently, “could implicate the undivided mineral interest of absent successors without giving the interest owners an opportunity to defend their title.” The trial court was well within its discretion in finding that absent claimants to mineral interests should be joined as parties. Judgment affirmed.
