This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals recently held that an “anti-washout” provision found in multiple assignments of overriding royaltyinterests covering leases that subsequently expired was not binding on the original lessee’s assignees, which had taken new leases to those same lands, as there was no privity of contract.
In the context of antiquated oil and gas conveyances including a double fraction that includes “one-eighth,” the Court affirmed this principle by holding that such language gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that “one-eighth” refers to the entire mineral estate. Dils Co. , 2d 904 (Tex. Dawkins , 483 S.W.3d Element Petroleum Props.,
This article discusses a couple more cases in 2024. In each of these cases, one side successfully argued that the Van Dyke presumption applied, and the other side unsuccessfully argued that it was rebutted. Many anticipate that double-fraction cases will continue to steadily flow through Texas courts for the foreseeable future.
Whether you own a single royaltyinterest or manage a large mineral portfolio, title curative work is essential to ensuring your ownership is properly documented and revenue flows without delay. Contact Are you ready to transform your oil and gas assets? What is Title Curative?
(Oil & Gas 360) – Publisher’s Note: CanCambria Energy will be presenting at EneCom Denver – The Energy Investment Conference on August 17-20, 2025. The company holds 100% working interest and 98% net royaltyinterest across the greater BA-IX mining license at the Kiskunhalas project.
The Eastland Court of Appeals addressed, for the first time, the interpretation of a double-fraction royalty reservation in light of Van Dyke. The case ( Boren Descendants v. Fasken Oil & Ranch, Ltd. , centered on whether a 1933 deed reserved a floating 1/4 royaltyinterest or a fixed 1/32 interest.
Court Interprets “Free of Cost Forever” Royalty Language Broadly In this case ( Fasken Oil & Ranch, Ltd. Background: 1960 Deed and Royalty Dispute The dispute arose from a 1960 deed where B.A. Hyder , which also addressed a royalty provision with “cost-free” language.
The Plaintiff sold land to a third party and reserved a 1/8 royalty nonparticipating royaltyinterest (fixed royalty language). The Court of Appeals reversed and held that the stipulation of interest should not be considered, and that the Plaintiff owned a 1/8 fixed royalty. ConocoPhillips Co.,
The court concluded that the underlying sales contracts did not require the seller to assign any particular percentage of its extra working interest, rendering the attempted post-closing corrections ineffective. The sales contracts addressed this extra up-to-5% interest through Section 8.1(iii), Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire V.P.,
2023), in which it held that lessees owed royalties in excess of their gross proceeds, specifically “adding back” costs incurred by third-party buyers that were enumerated in the sales contract and subtracted from the sales price. The lessees owned working interests in certain oil and gas leases that were executed in 2007.
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in a case that could substantially clarify, or even fundamentally reshape, the characterization and ownership of underground storage rights in Texas. The case was Myers-Woodward v. The case remains pending before the Texas Supreme Court on petition for review.
The current proposed bill, however, would require operators to remit all royalty payments directly to the lessors on behalf of nonparticipating working interest owners prior to well payout, i.e., during the recoupment of costs, and the statutorily authorized risk charge.
The Case In this recent case, the Texas Supreme Court resolved whether ratification of a lease or signing of a stipulation agreement could transform a fixed non-participating royaltyinterest (NPRI) into a floating NPRI. " The Gipses later leased the minerals to ConocoPhillips for a 1/4 royalty.
Dunn-McCampbell RoyaltyInterest Inc. The case involved land in the Padre Island National Park, created in 1963. First, it advanced a plain language argument based on the text of the Texas law creating that park. Nat’l Park Serv. , 09-40187 (5th Cir.
In 1947, Myers-Woodward's predecessors retained the surface estate but conveyed the mineral estate to Underground Services Markham's (USM) predecessor through a mineral deed that included "all of the said oil, gas and other minerals in, on and under said land." " • In Lightning Oil Co. West, 508 S.W.2d
—Tyler 5/5/2010), the Tyler Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the termination of an oil and gas lease for failure to pay shut-in royalty payments to the proper party. The case involved a dispute between the original lessee and a top lessee.
the Louisiana Second Circuit upheld a trial court’s ruling that the holder of a security interest in mineral leases was solidarily liable for damages under the Louisiana Mineral Code stemming from its mineral lessees/mortgagors’ actions. [1] in unpaid royalties and an additional double damages penalty of $484,058.52 4] $242,029.26
The Texas Supreme Court recently released its anticipated opinion in Eagle Oil & Gas Co. The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) TRO-X”) and Eagle Oil & Gas Co. Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. TRO-X, L.P. ,
The Texas Supreme Court recently released its anticipated opinion in Eagle Oil & Gas Co. The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) TRO-X”) and Eagle Oil & Gas Co. Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. TRO-X, L.P. ,
Recently, when there was talk about Houston-based ATP Oil and Gas’ (ATP) legal problems, it was inevitably about its bankruptcy and its effort to bring the overriding royaltyinterests it had conveyed back into the bankrupt estate as debt instruments. 362(b)(4).
Preferred equity in these cases usually includes the right to vote for directors of a corporation or managers of an LLC. In many cases, the investors in preferred equity will require representation on the board of directors for an SMB organized as a corporation or the board of managers for an SMB organized as an LLC.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
40 
Let's personalize your content