Gavenda v. Strata Energy, Inc.
29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 169, 88 Oil & Gas Rep. 568, 705 S.W.2d 690 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Division and transfer orders are not binding until revoked when an operator prepares erroneous orders, underpays royalty owners, and unjustly retains the underpaid proceeds for itself, as this constitutes unjust enrichment.
Facts:
- In 1967, the Gavenda family conveyed land to the Feinsteins, reserving a fifteen-year one-half (1/2) non-participating royalty interest in all oil and gas produced from the land.
- The Feinsteins later sold the land, subject to the Gavendas’ oil and gas reservation, to Billy Blaha.
- In 1976, Blaha executed an oil and gas lease for a 1/8th royalty.
- Strata Energy, Inc. and Northstar Resources, Inc. each acquired a working interest in the lease, with Strata designated as the lease operator responsible for disbursing all royalties from production.
- Strata hired an attorney who erroneously informed them that the Gavendas were collectively entitled to a 1/16th royalty, rather than their actual 1/2 royalty interest.
- Based on this erroneous report, Strata prepared division orders and later transfer orders reflecting a 1/16th royalty for the Gavendas.
- The Gavendas signed these division and transfer orders and received disbursements that underpaid them by a 7/16th royalty, with Strata and Northstar retaining part of the underpayment for themselves.
- On September 29, 1982, the Gavendas discovered the error and revoked the division and transfer orders; their royalty interest then terminated two days later on October 1, 1982.
Procedural Posture:
- The Gavendas filed suit in trial court to recoup underpaid royalties from Strata Energy and Northstar Resources.
- Both sides filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Strata and Northstar, holding that the division orders were binding until revoked.
- The Gavendas appealed to the court of appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment but reversed summary judgment and remanded the cause as to Victor Gavenda’s estate, finding that there were fact issues whether the division and transfer orders encompassed his estate.
- Both the Gavendas (as appellants, contending the rule does not apply with unjust enrichment) and Strata/Northstar (as appellants, contending orders were also binding on Victor Gavenda’s estate) appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the general rule that division and transfer orders are binding until revoked apply when an operator prepares erroneous orders underpaying royalty owners and unjustly retains the underpaid proceeds?
Opinions:
Majority - SPEARS, Justice
No, the general rule that division and transfer orders are binding until revoked does not apply when an operator prepares erroneous orders underpaying royalty owners and unjustly retains the underpaid proceeds. The court explained that while the general rule protects purchasers and operators who rely on division orders to prevent double liability in cases of misdistribution, this protection applies when the operator has not personally benefited from the errors. The underlying principles for enforcing division orders until revocation are detrimental reliance by the distributor and the prevention of unjust enrichment of overpaid royalty owners. However, when the operator (Strata in this case) both prepared the erroneous orders and profited by retaining the underpaid portion of the Gavendas' royalties, the situation falls outside the rationale of cases like Exxon Corp. v. Middleton and Chicago Corp. v. Wall. The court referenced Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Terrell, where division orders were not binding because the operator profited from its error. Here, Strata underpaid the Gavendas by a significant amount (7/16th royalty) and retained that portion, thereby profiting at the royalty owners' expense. The attorney's erroneous title report is attributable to Strata under agency principles. Therefore, Strata is liable to the Gavendas for the portion of their royalties that it retained.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of the 'binding until revoked' rule for oil and gas division orders, establishing a critical exception when the operator directly benefits from its own errors. It reinforces that while division orders provide administrative convenience, they do not supersede the underlying deed or lease terms, especially where unjust enrichment of the operator is involved. The ruling shifts the risk of operator error back to the operator when they profit from it, rather than automatically imposing it on the royalty owner. This decision encourages greater diligence by operators in calculating and distributing royalties and provides a strong legal basis for royalty owners to recover underpayments when the operator has benefited from the mistake.
