Robert Bauer, a Texan who buys, and sells mineral rights across the country through a multi-entity structure including Braxton Minerals II (BM2), and Brad Ashburn formed with an investor, EnerQuest, an Oklahoma company, Braxton Minerals III (BM3), which was to purchase mineral rights, some from BM2, under a Company Agreement.¹ From November 2015 to April 2016 Ashburn sent EnerQuest eleven "draw requests" to fund BM3's purchases, and two of them led to the purchase of thirty mineral deeds, nineteen of which ended up naming BM2 rather than BM3 as grantee.² BM3 alleges that this misdirected royalty payments and that Bauer and BM2 defrauded it and avoided paying for the rights.³

BM3 sued Bauer and BM2 in Texas district court, and Bauer and BM2 moved to dismiss on the theory that a Texas court lacks jurisdiction to determine title to real property outside Texas; the court denied the motion, granted BM3 summary judgment, and ordered Bauer and BM2 to perform their contractual obligations, convey the disputed mineral rights and royalties, and reform the nineteen deeds, while declaring BM3 the rightful owner of certain royalty interests, enjoining transfers of the deeds, and awarding damages and fees.¹ The Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) reversed, holding that the "gist" of BM3's allegations was ownership of the mineral interests, so the suit was an impermissible attempt to adjudicate title to non-Texas real estate, and it did not reach the merits.² The vehicle in this Court is a petition for review filed by BM3, argued November 6, 2025, and decided May 15, 2026.³

Petition for review from the Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) after summary judgment; argued November 6, 2025, and decided May 15, 2026.⁴

BM3 presents one issue:¹ whether lower courts may ignore this Court's rule that Texas courts lack jurisdiction over claims that act directly upon or directly affect title to property in other states, and hold instead that there is no jurisdiction if only "the gist" of a case involves property in another state.

The Court did not state a standard of review. It decided as a question of law whether the court of appeals correctly held that the Texas courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.¹

Whether a Texas court has jurisdiction over a suit to compel conveyance of out-of-state mineral rights.

BM3 (Petitioner): For over 100 years the Court has held that Texas courts have jurisdiction over the obligations of parties even when the obligations relate to property outside the state, and the dividing line is whether a claim is in personam or in rem, so a court can order parties to execute deeds to property in another state but cannot act directly on the property.¹ The court of appeals followed its sister courts' "gist" rule rather than this Court's precedent.²

Bauer and BM2 (Respondents): Texas courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over contract disputes involving out-of-state property but cannot resolve disputed title to it, and courts must examine the nature of a party's claims to determine whether they require jurisdiction over people, property, or both.³ In their response to the petition, Bauer and BM2 argued that BM3 identified no contract obligating either of them and relied only on a putative letter of intent and a putative company agreement to which they say they are not parties.⁴

BM3 argued that the court of appeals' "gist" rule contravenes this Court's precedent and obscures the true line between in personam and in rem relief, and that other Texas appellate courts have applied the same rule.¹

• Pleading into jurisdiction. Asked what the jurisdictional test is, respondents' counsel said jurisdiction depends on the pleadings, and a party cannot plead its way into it. (Oral Argument, 0:20:41)
• The mistake. Asked about the mutual mistake, respondents' counsel said West Virginia grantors meant to convey to BM3 but conveyed to BM2, so the claim asks a grantee to reform their deed. (Oral Argument, 0:19:34)
• Specific performance. Asked about specific performance, respondents' counsel said BM3 has not cited a contract under which it could be ordered. (Oral Argument, 0:22:25)
• In rem error. Asked whether a judgment mistakenly acting on out-of-state property is a waivable defect, BM3's counsel said it is not a personal-jurisdiction question, and knew of no case where that happened. (Oral Argument, 0:02:07)

None

Holding

A Texas court with personal jurisdiction over the parties does not lack subject-matter jurisdiction over a suit to compel conveyance of out-of-state mineral rights merely because ownership of foreign real estate is at issue; the dividing line is whether the judgment operates in personam or in rem, and the Court disapproved the "gist" or "gravamen" rule.¹

Reasoning

The in personam/in rem distinction. An in personam judgment binds only the parties, while an in rem judgment affects the interests of all persons in the thing, and most modern civil suits seek only in personam relief.² The distinction was part of the English law Texas inherited, from Penn v. Lord Baltimore through Massie v. Watts, under which a court with jurisdiction over a defendant's person may compel him to convey out-of-state land even though title is essential to the case.³

Texas precedent. The Court's cases, Texas & Pacific Railway v. Gay, Holt, and McElreath, follow the same rule: a Texas court cannot by its own force annul a foreign deed or establish title, but it may compel a party before it to convey land or cancel a deed, and an equitable decree operating in personam is enforceable.⁴ Recent federal decisions reject arguments like Bauer's and BM2's, and other state courts agree.⁵

The "gist" rule. The court of appeals applied a "gist" or "gravamen" rule under which Texas courts lack jurisdiction if a claim involves adjudication of title to foreign real estate, but that rule misperceives the distinction of jurisdictional significance, which is whether the decree purports to directly affect title of its own force or acts on the parties in personam, and the Court disapproved of it and the decisions applying it.⁶ When a judgment operates in personam, any answer it gives about title to foreign property binds only the parties and does not establish who owns it as against the world.⁷

Application. Each form of relief BM3 won, the order to perform and convey, the reformation of the deeds, the declaration of ownership of the royalties, and the injunction, operates in personam and is made effectual through the coercion of the defendants, so it is within a Texas court's jurisdiction.⁸ The Court was not convinced by the argument that the local action doctrine requires suit in West Virginia.⁹

Disposition

Court of appeals' judgment reversed and the case remanded to that court for consideration of the remaining arguments.¹⁰

Vote Breakdown

Majority Opinion by Chief Justice Blacklock

Joined by Bland, Busby, Devine, Hawkins, Huddle, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.