Gill v. Gipson
2007 WL 2302929, 982 So.2d 415 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An assignee of an oil, gas, and mineral lease who has knowledge of an overriding royalty clause, accepts its benefits, and later causes the lease to terminate by cessation of production to renegotiate a new lease, remains bound by the overriding royalty obligation under an implied covenant of good faith and the 'prudent operator' standard.
Facts:
- Wessie Mae Lowe owned approximately eighty-four acres in Pearl River County, Mississippi, and on June 16, 1970, she leased oil, gas, and mineral rights to D.L. Royals.
- The 1970 lease included an automatic termination clause if no production occurred for sixty consecutive days.
- D.L. Royals operated the 'A.L. Lowe #1' well from 1970 until his death in 1989, after which his interest passed to his heirs, Brenda Gipson, Judy McInnis, Catherine Jones, Deborah Norton, and Christy Renee Royals (collectively, the Royals).
- In 1991, Preston O. Gill, acting as an agent, helped PRP, Inc. acquire the Royals' interest in the lease, resulting in the Royals assigning their interest to PRP, Inc.
- The July 4, 1991 assignment from the Royals to PRP, Inc. explicitly reserved a 1/8 overriding royalty and stipulated that if the lease expired and PRP, Inc. or any entity in which it or its agents had an interest secured a future lease, the Royals would still receive the 1/8 overriding royalty.
- Less than two months later, PRP, Inc. assigned Gill a 2.5% carried working interest and a 1.875% net revenue interest in the lease, and eventually Gill acquired full ownership of the lease from Trinity Oil & Gas Development, Inc. on August 26, 1997.
- Gill continued production of the 'A.L. Lowe #1' well until October 1998, then ceased production, claiming increased costs, allowing the original lease to terminate after sixty days of non-production.
- On March 31, 1999, approximately three months after ceasing production, Gill prepared and secured a new oil, gas, and mineral lease on the same property from Donald Wayne Lowe (the current landowner) to Preston O. Gill Operating Company, and then resumed production from the well without paying royalties to the Royals.
Procedural Posture:
- The Royals commenced this action by filing their complaint in the Chancery Court of Pearl River County to confirm title to an overriding royalty interest, recover monies, and for attorney's fees.
- After a trial, the chancellor awarded a judgment against Preston O. Gill for oil royalties, gas royalties, prejudgment interest, future royalties, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.
- Preston O. Gill, as appellant, appealed the judgment of the Chancery Court to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
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 an individual who acquires an oil and gas lease containing an overriding royalty reservation, subsequently allows the lease to terminate by ceasing production, and then obtains a new lease on the same property, remain obligated to pay the reserved overriding royalty to the original assignors?
Opinions:
Majority - Griffis, J.
Yes, Gill remains obligated to pay the reserved overriding royalty to the Royals because he stepped into the shoes of the assignee with full knowledge of the contractual provision, his conduct constituted a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and the 'prudent operator' standard, and he had previously ratified the obligation by paying royalties. The chancellor's finding that Gill's conduct was a deliberate effort to terminate the Royals' interest was supported by substantial evidence, particularly given that Gill ceased production, allowed the lease to expire, and then immediately renegotiated a new lease and resumed production. Furthermore, by accepting the assignment from Trinity and paying royalties for over a year, Gill effectively ratified and assumed the obligation of paragraph 9, which was not a personal covenant but a binding contractual provision. The court also determined that the entity 'Preston O. Gill Operating Company' was not demonstrably separate from Gill himself. The court affirmed the award of prejudgment interest because the issue, despite not being in the pleadings, was tried by implied consent through a stipulation of evidence regarding calculation of interest. Finally, the court found the award of punitive damages and attorney's fees appropriate given Gill's reckless disregard for the Royals' rights, as evidenced by his intentional actions to terminate their interest and secure a new lease for himself. The court declined to adopt Oklahoma's strict approach to the rule against perpetuities, adhering to Mississippi's 'wait and see' approach, and found that the provision did not violate the rule because the contingency (securing a new lease) occurred within eight years of the original instrument's creation, well within the perpetuity period.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the duties of an assignee in oil and gas leases, particularly concerning overriding royalty interests. It emphasizes that a knowing assignee cannot deliberately cause a lease to terminate and then re-lease the property to circumvent a valid overriding royalty provision, even if the clause might not technically 'run with the land.' The decision reinforces the implied covenant of good faith and the 'prudent operator' standard, holding operators accountable for actions that benefit themselves at the expense of other interest holders. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of stipulations in litigation, showing how they can satisfy pleading requirements for remedies like prejudgment interest, and reaffirms Mississippi's flexible 'wait and see' approach to the rule against perpetuities.
