Once again, a Texas court has barred a lawsuit because the plaintiff waited too long to file. And once again, perhaps, the suit was a Hail Mary after alternatives failed.
In Hobson v. Commissioners Court of Palo Pinto County, a court of appeals affirmed a judgment against a landowner because his
Ambiguity is handy for office-seekers intending to walk back “promises” they later say they really didn’t make. It doesn’t work so well for the stability of land titles. In Thagard Mineral Partnership, LP v. Cass v. RIM, LLP, a Texas court of appeals resolved a dispute over whether vague exhibits in
Defendants – five oil and gas operators – challenged a venue selection clause requiring that suits be filed in Nueces County for disputes over La Salle County acreage. In In re INEOS USA Oil & Gas LLC, (disclosure and shout out: Gray Reed lawyers Justin Lipe, Bill Drabble and David Pruitt
“He who comes for the inheritance is often made to pay for the funeral”.* When heirs inherit property together and can’t agree on its use, Texas courts strongly prefer dividing the land physically rather than forcing a sale, even when one owner wants to cash out.
It seems to be fairly well settled that you can’t use trespass-to-try-title to recover a nonpossessory royalty interest in Texas. What if you call the interest a “mineral interest stripped of every attribute except the right to receive royalty”? The result is the same; you can’t.
State of Texas. V. Reimer et al. studied lawyer-nerdy questions of standing to bring a lawsuit and statutes of limitations as applied to inverse condemnation suits. Spoiler alert: To the chagrin of the landowners, waiting over 30 years to assert your takings claim is not the best course of action.
The facts
In 1965
In Cactus Water v. COG Operating, the Supreme Court affirmed that mineral lessee COG, not water rights owner Cactus (who derived it rights from the surface owner), has the right to possession, custody, control, and disposition of constituent water in liquid waste – so-called produced water – from its hydrocarbon production.
In Myers-Woodward, LLC v. Underground Services Markham, LLC et al, (discussed previously) the parties disagreed on how to calculate Myers’ royalty on salt produced by Underground.
The facts
The 1947 mineral deed reserved to Myers “a perpetual one eighth (1/8th) royalty on all oil that may be produced and saved from”
In a word, the surface estate owner. If that’s all the learning you are up for today, proceed directly to the musical interludes. If you want to know why the Supreme Court of Texas had to say this again, read on.
In a 1947 mineral deed Myers retained the surface estate in a 160-acre tract.