Hall Ponderosa, LLC v. Petrohawk Properties, L.P.
2012 WL 1108660, 90 So. 3d 512, 11 La.App. 3 Cir. 1056 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party seeking to reform a contract on the basis of mutual error must prove by clear and convincing evidence that both parties shared the same mistake at the time of execution. A party's own negligence in failing to read the instrument or in signing an instrument known to be incomplete may preclude the equitable remedy of reformation.
Facts:
- Hall Ponderosa, LLC, managed by experienced landman Tommy Wright and petroleum engineer Greg Hall, owned two separate tracts of land: one in Section 14 (Stella Plantation) and one in Section 13 (Town Dump).
- Petrohawk Properties, L.P., through its landman Jeff Heard, was acquiring mineral leases in the area and was specifically interested in tracts of 100 acres or more.
- Heard contacted Hall Ponderosa's managers to negotiate a lease for the Section 14 property.
- During negotiations, Wright and Hall never specifically stated that they owned the Section 13 property or that they intended for it to be included in the lease agreement.
- Wright provided Heard with a property description from a previous lease that only described the Section 14 property, and this description was incorporated into the new lease.
- Wright and Hall both signed the lease, which only described the Section 14 property. Hall admitted he did not read the lease before signing, and Wright, an experienced landman, reviewed it.
- Months later, after a survey revealed the Section 13 property was much larger than previously believed (144.55 acres), Wright contacted Heard to ask if Petrohawk was interested in leasing this 'unleased acreage'.
- When Petrohawk declined, Hall Ponderosa asserted that the Section 13 property had been mistakenly omitted from the original lease.
Procedural Posture:
- Hall Ponderosa, LLC sued Petrohawk Properties, L.P. in a Louisiana trial court, seeking reformation of a mineral lease.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Hall Ponderosa, ruling that a mutual error existed.
- The trial court ordered the lease to be reformed to include the additional property and ordered Petrohawk to pay approximately $2 million, plus attorney fees and costs.
- Petrohawk Properties, L.P., as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.
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 a mineral lease that omits a tract of land constitute a mutual error requiring reformation when one party was unaware of the other's ownership of that tract, and the complaining party, who was experienced in such transactions, failed to read the lease carefully or ensure its accuracy before signing?
Opinions:
Majority - Keaty, Judge.
No. The lease does not constitute a mutual error requiring reformation because Hall Ponderosa failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petrohawk intended to lease the Section 13 property, and Hall Ponderosa's own negligence precludes the remedy. Reformation is an equitable remedy available only when a written instrument fails to express the true intent of both parties due to a shared mistake. Hall Ponderosa provided no evidence—no emails, letters, or testimony of specific conversations—to show that Petrohawk ever intended to lease the Section 13 property. In fact, Petrohawk's agent testified he was unaware Hall Ponderosa even owned it and was not interested in leasing in that section. Furthermore, the managers of Hall Ponderosa, both experienced professionals, were negligent; one failed to read the lease before signing it, and the other signed a lease he knew did not contain the property description for Section 13. A party who negligently executes an instrument cannot later seek to reform it.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high evidentiary burden—clear and convincing proof—required to reform a contract for mutual mistake. It clarifies that the mistake must be truly mutual, meaning both parties held the same erroneous belief, rather than a unilateral mistake by one party. The decision also emphasizes the legal principle that a party's signature on a contract carries significant weight, and courts will not use the equitable power of reformation to rescue sophisticated parties from the consequences of their own negligence, such as failing to read a contract before signing.
Unlock the full brief for Hall Ponderosa, LLC v. Petrohawk Properties, L.P.