Unitex WI LLC v. CT Land and Cattle Company LLC rejected the surface owner’s effort to force the mineral lessee to bury a pipeline below plow depth. Surface owner CT’s claim was based on a mineral lease signed by former owner Fuller in 1948. CT had acquired the surface from Senns, who acquired it
Co-author Brittany BlakeyIn 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
Co-authors Lydia Webb and Rusty TuckerUntil Monarch Midstream v. Badlands Energy, midstream companies facing rejection of their contracts in a producer’s bankruptcy were left with Abraham Lincoln’s least favorite negotiating option: If the both law and the facts are against you, pound on the table. Under Sabine (which we covered here, here, and here) gathering agreements are not covenants running with the land and can be rejected in the producer’s bankruptcy. Sabine was the only law on the books, but now a Colorado bankruptcy court has determined that a gathering agreement was a covenant running with the land.
Continue Reading Midstream Dedications – Colorado Bankruptcy Court Levels the Playing Field
Co-author Lydia WebbQ: How many New York federal judges does it take to make a mess of Texas property law?
A: In In Re: Sabine Oil and Gas Corp., five. One to get it wrong, another to affirm the wrongness, and three more for reinforcement.
For the third time, a federal court in
Question: Can a landowner enforce a right of first refusal bargained for by his predecessor? Answer: It depends. (Note to self: Why do you always say that in your posts? Because, as Texas Rangers’ manager Ron Washington might say, “That’s the way the law go”.) The answer in MPH Production Co. v. Smith et