Recent years have seen an ongoing melange of legalities vehemently deliberated in courtrooms across the United States, none more fiercely contested than the Fixed vs. Floating Suits. Legal professionals might ask, when will this series of cases come to their ultimate conclusion?
As the renowned legal news outlet JD Supra asks rhetorically, “When will Texas be done with fixed/floating royalty cases such as Johnson et al v. Clifton et al?” The answer seems to elude us as this debate spirals into finer points of legal interpretation.
The answer, offered rather flippantly, is when “scriveners of deeds that are open to eight conceivably plausible meanings have completed their remedial scrivening courses…” The underlying point here is a critique on how contracts and deeds are drafted—with such ambiguity that it opens the doorway to multiple interpretations. This lack of clarity is arguably the catalyst for lawsuits like the aforementioned, prolonging legal proceedings unnecessarily.
This raises important questions for the legal fraternity: How can such scenarios be prevented in the future? To what extent should the burden of avoiding such lawsuits fall on those drafting deeds and contracts? These are issues that demand urgent attention, not only to avoid unnecessary legal costs but also to promote transparency and efficiency in the legal system.
In conclusion, for the Fixed vs. Floating Suits to end, industry reform might be needed, centered around improving the skills of scriveners, and developing clear guidelines for drafting contracts and deeds. With lessons learned from cases like Johnson et al v. Clifton et al, the legal field can only hope for a future with less ambiguity in deed and contract language.