Land Titles

Subscribe to Land Titles
Co-author Rusty Tucker

Scribner v. Wineinger, et al. affirms that acquisition of a Texas oil and gas leasehold by limitations is not defeated if the adverse possessor’s acknowledgement of a claimant’s title comes too late.

Transaction history

Scribner’s father conveyed all of the interest to his son by the “2002 Assignment” but Scribner was unaware of the instrument until 2016. (Thanks, Dad!) In 2010, the executor of the estate of the now-deceased father assigned the interest to Latigo. Scribner, ignorant of the windfall, didn’t claim ownership. By a series of assignments between 2010 and October 2016, Parra et al (including Wineinger) obtained the interest. During that time Parra and its predecessors operated the lease, received the revenue, and paid the taxes.…
Continue Reading

The 2019 Texas legislature enacted a new Property Code Section 5.152 to protect mineral and royalty owners from a certain species of fraudulent transactions perpetrated on trusting and/or naïve and/or out of state mineral owners. Ethan Wood and I wrote about the scam when it made its way into the courthouse.

How the scam worked

The grifter, fronting for a company with a name similar to a reputable operator, would approach the owner with an oil and gas “lease” of minerals or royalty that were already subject to an existing lease. Except that the lease was actually the sale of the mineral or royalty interest at a bargain price. The scammers would then invoke arbitration provisions they had written into the conveyance, and relying on the confidential nature of the arbitration process, would stifle publicity of the inevitable dispute.

…
Continue Reading

In Mary et al. QEP Energy Company  the question was, given an encroachment of a pipeline onto the property of another, what is the test for determining the good faith, or not, of the party in possession?

Ms. Mary and QED were parties to a Pipeline Servitude Agreement and what appears to be an oil and gas lease (the court could have just called it that). Ms. Mary  et al claimed that QED’s gas pipelines unlawfully extended onto their property by 31 feet and 15 feet and sought disgorgement of the profits derived from the pipelines. The issue was to determine the source of the liability of QED, the encroacher, which would determine damages.   …
Continue Reading

Co-author Chance Decker

How long – if ever – has it been since you pondered the difference between a “tenancy in common” and a “joint tenancy”? Same for us, until the wheels came off a family relationship and a lawsuit was filed in Wagenschein v. Ehlinger. This brings to us – and you – the opportunity to review a little Texas property law. Landmen and title examiners, perk up.

Tenancy in common v. joint tenancy…
Continue Reading

Today is a two-fer. The questions: When does the “merger doctrine” not work in Texas, and how do courts treat technological developments created after a contract becomes effective?

In Murphy Land Group LLC v. Atmos Energy Corporation, Atmos constructed and operated pipelines under three easements from the ‘50’s and ‘60’s and the parties had a 2012 Roadway Lease granting Atmos a 40 foot roadway lease, which expired under his own terms in 2015.

The merger doctrine…
Continue Reading

Confess … Confess!

When  you prepare, review and/or sign settlement agreements you sometimes pay less attention than you should to the details of those “standard” releases! Acme Energy Services, d/b/a Big Dog Drilling v. Staley et al. says, Beware the “boilerplate”; before signing consider what you are actually trying to accomplish.…
Continue Reading

Co-authors Niloufar Hafizi and Mauri Hinterlong

In resolving disputes among the mineral interest family, there is no bright-line rule delineating the duty of the executive right holder. In Texas Outfitters Limited v. Nicholson, the Texas Supreme Court explained why. The Court last addressed executive rights in 2015 in KCM Financial v. Bradshaw, where the executive allegedly colluded with a lessee for lease terms favoring itself at the expense of the non-executive. Texas Outfitters presented an oppportunity for the Court to apply the KCM guidelines to a different scenario: whether the executive breached the duty by refusing to lease.

(Spoiler alert: Yes.)…
Continue Reading

Co-authors Ethan Wood and Chance Decker

Less than a year ago, we discussed the “Unanswered Questions” left in the wake of Devon Energy Prod. Co., LP v. Apache Corp. (which did answer the question, “Who is a ‘Payor’ Under the Texas Natural Resources Code?”). We asked:

“But if the non-participating working interest owner is not paying royalties—what is keeping the lease alive? Absent pooling of the leases or a JOA, the non-participating working interest owner cannot rely on the operator’s actions to perpetuate its leases. A sly operator can obtain top leases from the non-participating working interest lessors and run out the clock on those leases …”

In Cimarex Energy Co. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., the operator did just that … …
Continue Reading

Co-author Chance Decker

 Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, LP. v. Texas Crude Energy, LLC et al is another chapter in the back-and-forth over deduction of post-production costs from royalty payments. In “clarifying” (royalty owners might say “retreating from”) Chesapeake Exploration & Production, LLC v. Hyder, the Texas Supreme Court held that a royalty delivered into the pipeline or tanks is akin to a royalty delivered “at the wellhead.” The lessee was entitled to deduct post-production costs from its royalty calculation, notwithstanding that the calculation was based on the “amount realized” from downstream sales.

Don’t read too much into it?…
Continue Reading

Co-authors Chance Decker and Ethan Wood

Marsha Ellison v. Three Rivers Acquisition, LLC, et al. reminds us what is required for an instrument to be a conveyance and what is required for a stipulation to be effective.

When J.D. Suggs died in 1925, his heirs agreed to swap land with the Noelkes, and executed the Suggs Deed conveying several tracts to the Noelkes. One tract was described as “all of … the lands located North and West of the public road which now runs across the corner of [the survey], containing 147 acres more or less.”  There was a problem: There were actually 301 acres in the section northwest of the public road.…
Continue Reading