Philpot v. Fields
633 S.W.2d 546, 1982 Tex. App. LEXIS 4128 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lease for a fixed term of years 'and so long thereafter' as the lessee uses the property for a specific and ascertainable purpose is valid and enforceable. It does not create a tenancy at will terminable by either party simply because its ultimate end date is indefinite.
Facts:
- On October 5, 1956, Florence Akin leased a 9.4-acre tract of land to Bert Fields, Sr.
- The written lease stipulated a term of 20 years 'and so long thereafter' as the lessee used the land for maintaining and operating equipment to process natural gas and petroleum products.
- The lease required an annual rent payment of $75.00.
- Shortly after the lease was signed, Bert Fields, Sr. installed the specified equipment and began operations.
- The use of the property for the specified purpose has been continuous since 1956, first by Bert Fields, Sr. and then by his successor, Bert Fields, Jr.
- All rent payments have been made on time throughout the lease's duration.
- Jimmie Philpot subsequently acquired title to the land, becoming the successor to the original lessor, Florence Akin.
Procedural Posture:
- Jimmie Philpot, the current landowner, filed an action in a Texas trial court seeking a declaration that the lease held by Bert Fields, Jr. was unenforceable.
- The case was submitted to the trial court on stipulated facts, meaning both parties agreed on the factual record.
- The trial court declined to declare the lease unenforceable and entered a judgment in favor of the lessee, Fields.
- Philpot, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals.
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 land lease for a fixed term of 20 years 'and so long thereafter' as the lessee uses the premises for a specific, ascertainable purpose become an unenforceable tenancy at will after the 20-year term expires due to its indefinite duration?
Opinions:
Majority - Bleil, Justice
No. A lease for a fixed term and 'so long thereafter' as the land is used for a specific, ascertainable purpose does not create a tenancy at will after the fixed term expires. The court reasoned that although the lease's duration after the initial 20-year period is uncertain, its termination is tied to a definite and objectively ascertainable event: the cessation of the specified use of the land. This distinguishes it from a true tenancy at will, which is terminable at the discretion of either party. The court rejected older precedents that strictly required a definite ending date, noting a modern trend in law to enforce the clear intent of the parties as expressed in a comprehensive written agreement. It found an analogy in oil and gas leases, which are commonly written to last 'so long as' minerals are produced and are considered to have a definite duration. The court concluded that there is no valid reason to prevent parties from freely contracting for a lease to last as long as a specific, definite use is made of the land.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant modernization of Texas property law, moving away from the rigid common law requirement that a lease must have a certain, calendrically definite term to be valid. By enforcing the 'so long thereafter' clause contingent on a specific use, the court prioritizes the parties' freedom of contract and expressed intent over archaic formalisms. This ruling provides greater certainty and stability for commercial leases where the duration is logically tied to the continuation of a specific business enterprise on the property. It aligns the principles governing surface leases with those long established in oil and gas law, promoting consistency in the state's property jurisprudence.
