LABORDE PROPERTIES, L.P., and Laborde Management, LLC, Appellants v. U.S. SHALE ENERGY II, LLC, Raymond B. Roush, Ruthie Roush Dodge, and David E, Roush, Appellees, 533 S.W.3d 447

DISSENTING OPINION Opinion Dissenting To the Denial op Appellees’ Motion fob En Banc Reconsideration Dissenting Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice The panel opinion gives no effect to the deed’s reservation of “an undivided one-half (1/2) interest” in “the” royalty and fails to adhere to longstanding harmonization principles. The panel opinion also misapplies the estate misconception theory by holding the theory supports finding a fixed interest.

As a result of misinterpreting the deed’s reservation,-.the panel opinion conflicts with prior decisions .of this court, the Supreme Court of Texas, and other courts of appeals. E.g., Hysaw v. Dawkins, 483 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Tex. 2016); Graham v. Prochaska, 429 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied); Coghill v. Griffith, 358 S.W.3d 834, 840 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, pet. denied); Hausser v. Cuellar, 345 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. denied) (op. on en banc reh’g).

Because the panel opinion creates title uncertainty and will likely .generate future title disputes, en banc reconsideration is necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.2(c). I therefore respectfully dissent.