Those who continue to be horrified by Broadway National Bank, Trustee v. Yates Energy Corp. should be relieved that the result in Endeavor Energy Resources, LP v. Anderson was more equitable. In Yates, the Texas Supreme Court held that Texas Property Code Section 5.029 permitted original parties to a conveyance to execute a
Court Finds Declaratory Judgment Action, Not Trespass to Try Title
Co-author Trevor Lawhorn
SM Energy Co. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. considers a question frequently asked in Texas suits affecting title: When is a suit a trespass to try title action and not a declaratory judgment action?
The dispute
SM Energy and Union Pacific are parties to three oil and gas leases covering lands in
Were the Mineral Deeds a Gift or a Sale? It Made a Difference.
Co-author Carolina Cuppitelli*
The question presented in Aaron v. Fisher et al: Did mineral deeds bestow separate property upon the grantees by gift, or did they convey a community property interest to the grantees and their spouses by sale for consideration?
Why was the question important? A gift is the grantee’s separate property; a
Texas Mineral Deed Signed Away Right to Sue
Co-author Brittany Blakey
The question in litigation is usually “WHAT”: what happened, what contract was breached, what did someone do or fail to do, and so on. In Hughes v. CJM Resources, LP, the question was, “WHO” had the right to file the suit in the first place? The Eastland Court of Appeals affirmed
The Meaning of “Subject To” in a Deed
Co-author Max Brown
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. International Development Corporation resolved the question, In a 100 year old Pennsylvania deed is a “subject to” provision an exception to a grant or a warranty disclaimer?
The transactions:
- 1894: 2,094 acres are sold by deed from Proctor and Hill to Union Trading Company; Proctor and Hill reserve all minerals. This reservation is not reported to the taxing authority, and the property is assessed and taxed as a whole following the sale.
- 1903: Union deeds the surface to CPLC.
- 1908: Property is sold in a tax sale to McCauley. This effectively “washes” the title and reunifies the two estates; McCauley owns the surface and the minerals.
- 1910: McCauley conveys the property back to CPLC.
- 1920: CPLC sells the property and other land to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The deed had two key clauses.
The clauses
The “First Clause”: The conveyance was “subject to” the mineral interests “as fully as said minerals and mineral rights were excepted and reserved in [the 1894 deed].”
The “Second Clause”: The conveyance was “also subject to all the reservations, exceptions, covenants, and stipulations contained in [the 1894 deed] … and in the [1903 deed].”
More transactions
CPLC quitclaims the mineral rights, the minerals were resold multiple times, in 2000 International Development Corporation (IDC) purchases the property.
Who owns the mineral rights, IDC or Commonwealth?
Continue Reading The Meaning of “Subject To” in a Deed
North Dakota Supreme Court to Hear Case on Pore Space Rights
Co-author Brittany Blakey
[Updated] The North Dakota Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Thursday to consider who owns the right to profit from the value of the porous spaces within subsurface rock formations. The issue is over Senate Bill 2344, passed by the Legislature in 2019 and, no
Texas Court Decides What “Likewise” Means in a Conveyance
Consider the power of a single word over the fortunes of the parties to a property deed. Such was the effect of the court’s ruling in Barrow Shaver Resources, LLC, et al v. NETX Acquisitions, LLC, et al.
In 1963, by the Stone Deed, Dawson and Hill conveyed a 181-acre tract in Cass County, Texas, to the Stones (John and Treba, not the Rollings). The granting clause described the land by metes and bounds, and continued, “There is likewise conveyed … 1/8th of the Oil, Gas and Other Minerals … .” The conveyance was subject to an oil and gas lease then existing. At the time of the suit, Barrow Shaver had an oil and gas lease from Dawson/Hill and NETX had a lease from Merritt (successor to the Stones).
The question and spoiler alert
Did Dawson/Hill convey 1/8th of the minerals or did they convey 100% of the minerals and attempt to reserve 7/8ths in themselves? Dawson and Hill conveyed 1/8th of the minerals (and the surface, of course).
The Court’s journey to the answer
Continue Reading Texas Court Decides What “Likewise” Means in a Conveyance
Buried Pipeline Ruling Favors Lessors
Co-author Brittany Blakey
In Texas, what happens to an obligation to bury pipelines when, after creation of the obligation, the surface and minerals are severed? Henry v. Smith explains.
Henry et al own the surface estate of the Camp Creek Ranch, a 15,000-acre tract in Archer County. Smith et al are lessees in three oil
Louisiana Court Considers Buried and Surface Flowlines
Co-author Brittany Blakey
In Emerald Land Corp. v. Trimont Energy (BL) LLC, a Louisiana federal court considered whether a lessee was required to remove flowlines buried beneath the surface and canal bottoms of property subject to mineral leases.
What the leases said
Each of three leases granted to lessee Chevron the exclusive right to construct lines, tanks, storage facilities, and other structures necessary “to produce, save, take, care of treat and transport” oil and gas products. All three had identical damages provisions: “Lessee shall pay all damages caused by its operations hereunder to the land, buildings and improvements presently existing… [.]” Chevron contended that the granting language included the express right to install buried flowlines in connection with its activities. No provision expressly required restoration of the land by removing buried flowlines or paying the cost of removal.
Addressing lease terms and Castex
Relying on the lease terms and Terrebonne Parish School Board v. Castex Energy, Inc., Chevron differentiated between buried flowlines (buried below “plow depth”, which here was at least three feet) from surface flowlines, alleging that buried lines did not cause damage to the land. Chevron admitted it had to remove the surface lines.
Emerald distinguished Castex arguing that, unlike the canals dredged on the property in that case, these flowlines were foreign equipment attached and buried on the property. Therefore, Chevron was obligated to remove the lines as part of its obligation to restore the land to its original condition minus normal “wear and tear.” Emerald also pointed to evidence showing that buried flowlines were exposed at the surface of the property and, presumably, created a hazard.
Continue Reading Louisiana Court Considers Buried and Surface Flowlines
Statute of Frauds Torpedoes an Overriding Royalty Sale
Co-author Brittany Blakey
Here we go again, in Gary and Theresa Poenisch Family Ltd. P’Ship v. TMH Land Servs., Inc., learning that a purported Texas land transaction will not be enforced if the parties fail to comply with the Statute of Frauds.
Poenisch and TMH, among others, jointly owned an overriding royalty interest in the