I've had three civil cases with the following scenario. It's clearly a crime and I'm hoping my north texas prosecutor friends have seen this before.

Bob sells his property along with his mineral rights to Frank. After the close, Bob then leases the mineral rights to a gas company so he can collect the large bonus check. Of course, Bob doesn't own the mineral rights anymore, Frank does, but its overlooked by the gas company during their title check and Bob now has made thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands) on minerals he knew he didn't own. I'm pretty sure the knowledge and intent to sell the mineral rights Bob clearly didn't own and knew he didn't own makes this a crime, but does it simply fall under the theft statute? Perhaps fraud since he leased the minerals that he did not possess? Just assume you can prove Bob knew he didn't own the minerals.

It's not as sexy as a frog as deadly weapon, but if I've seen this multiple times, I'm assuming at least one prosecutor in a Barnett Shale county has encountered it.

I recommend you contact Mike Elliott in Fort Bend County. He knows alot about real property and crimes.

Not exactly the same scenario, but very similar - land owner borrows money and mortgages the property for 30 years; very next day land owner sells property by contract for deed with a 5 year payout. Original owner pays his mortgage for the first 5 years out of the payments he receives from buyer and at the end of the contract for deed, gives the buyer a warranty deed with the language "save and except any and all liens against the property," and stops making payments on the mortgage. New owner finds out when the bank shows up to foreclose.

We prosecuted under 32.46 Securing Execution of Document by Deception and 32.32 False Statement to obtain property or credit. Those statutes also provide a generous limitations period.

Seems that it would work for your facts.

Maybe Securing Execution of a Document by Deception (PC 32.46) or Deceptive Business Practices (PC 32.42)?

32.32 sounds like the best bet to me, depending on your facts.

32.32 and 32.46 were my initial conclusions, but I wanted to make sure there wasn't something I was missing.

I am jealous of all of you going to the Annual. Be safe.

The interesting thing is that some leases these days do not even contain (require) a warranty of title. If the lessor never represents he owns the property and lets the lessee operate on its own false assumptions, I do not think he has a duty to correct the assumptions. It could easily vary from one case to the next, but I can see where a faulty title exam could get the lessee into trouble. In land titles, I think there is still a lot left to "let the buyer beware." What document are you saying is being caused to be executed by deception- the bonus check?

Withholding a material fact = fraud?