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 Broad Settlement Discharges Mineral Liens
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 Executive Right Holder Liable for Refusing to Lease
Co-author Chance DeckerBurlington 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 Texas Supreme Court Clarifies Hyder
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 A Lesson in Property Stipulations
We told you to “Beware of Strips and Gores” back in 2012 and today we bring you Green et al v. Chesapeake et al, the sequel. Unlike cinema’s greatest follow-ups, this entry feels more like an unneeded rehash of the original. Nevertheless, it is a good refresher on the topic.
Rules for the Genre
The strip-and-gore doctrine operates to pass title to lands in addition to the lands described in a conveyance when:
In a ruling that could benefit mineral owners who don’t regularly examine county deed records (to-wit, you?) the Supreme Court of Texas in Carl M. Archer Trust No. Three et al v. Tregellas held that the discovery rule delayed the running of the statute of limitations on behalf of the holder of a recorded right of first refusal to purchase mineral interests.
The trustees sued the Tregellases for buying the minerals without allowing the Trust to exercise its ROFR, contending that a contract was formed when they sued more than four years after the Tregellases’ purchase; the suit was their acceptance of the right to purchase the minerals, they said.
According to the Trellgases, the claim was barred by limitations because the suit was filed more than four years after the sale. The trustees responded that even if that were so, limitations should be delayed because they they had no obligation to search the county deed records.
The discovery rule described …
Continue Reading Texas High Court Invokes the Discovery Rule
Co-author Ethan WoodIn Texas losing a title dispute doesn’t mean you committed myriad heinous torts by asserting your rights in the first place. The test: Were you reasonable in bringing your colorable but not correct claim? So says Dorfman v. J P Morgan Chase Bank, NA.
Continue Reading Asserting a Losing Title Claim Isn’t (Always) Tortious
Harrison v. Rosetta Resources Operating LP presents a wacky? time-wasting? clever? unsuccessful attempt to expand reinvent the Texas accomodation doctrine.
Continue Reading Texas Accomodation Doctrine Claim Repudiated
Co-author Chance Decker
In Murphy Exploration & Production Co. — USA v. Adams the Texas Supreme Court held that an offset well clause in an oil and gas lease did not require the lessee to drill wells calculated to protect against drainage. Four dissenting justices believed the majority disregarded the well-established meaning of “offset well” used in the oilfield for decades.
Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court Redefines an Offset Well Clause
Scenes from the trial lawyer’s conference room:
Client: “Lookee here! This paragraph says we win!”
Lawyer: Yes, but what about all the other paragraphs?”
“Those don’t matter.”
Why is that?”
“Because they don’t help us. Did you graduate from law school?”
“But the court will harmonize all the provisions in the document.”
“If I want harmony I’ll go with the Everlys. If you’re afraid of a fight, I’ll find me a lawyer with a backbone. I’m thinking the tough, smart lawyer. That one that’s always on TV.”
and:
Client: “@*^& the words. I’ll tell ’em what the deal really was.”
(Repeat client disappointment)
In XTO Energy v. EOG Resources, a title dispute over the mineral estate in 1,653 acres in Atascosa and McMullen counties, Texas, the loser tried both, to no avail.
Continue Reading Foreclosure Included the Minerals Because the Documents Said So