Sunac Petroleum Corporation v. Parkes
10 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 412, 416 S.W.2d 798, 26 Oil & Gas Rep. 689 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an oil and gas lease contains a clause stating the assignee has no obligation to maintain the lease or develop the land, a new lease acquired by the assignee after the original lease has terminated will not be considered a "renewal or extension" perpetuating an overriding royalty interest, as such a clause negates the fiduciary duty typically implied by "renewal or extension" language alone.
Facts:
- On April 17, 1948, O’Hern executed an oil and gas lease to Frank Parkes for 160 acres with a 10-year primary term, allowing pooling for gas only.
- On May 15, 1957, Parkes assigned his lessee's interest to L. H. Puckett, reserving a 1/16 of 7/8 overriding royalty from the lease "or any extension or renewal thereof," but explicitly stating Puckett had no obligation to keep the lease in force by payment, drilling, or development, and could surrender it without Parkes' consent. This lease interest was later assigned to Sunac Petroleum Co. et al.
- On April 14, 1958, three days before the primary term expired, Sunac began drilling on a 640-acre gas unit that included Parkes' 160 acres, but the drilling was not on Parkes' specific land.
- On April 17, 1958, the primary term of the original lease expired, with drilling ongoing on the gas unit but no production or operations on the 160 acres.
- On June 11, 1958 (55 days after primary term expiration), the unit well was completed as a producing oil well, not a gas well.
- On June 24, 1958 (68 days after primary term expiration), Sunac began drilling a second well directly on the 160 acres, which was completed as a producing oil well on July 29, 1958.
- Around August 1959, the successors of O'Hern questioned the validity of the 1948 lease during the period between the primary term expiration and the second well's commencement on the 160 acres.
- On August 17, 1959, Sunac acquired a new oil, gas, and mineral lease from O'Hern's successors for $27,000, while the second well on the 160 acres was still producing. Sunac stopped paying Parkes his overriding royalty around December 1, 1959.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank Parkes instituted suit against Sunac Petroleum Co. et al. in the trial court (sitting without a jury) to establish his overriding royalty interest and for a money judgment for royalties due.
- The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, Parkes.
- Sunac Petroleum Co. et al. appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Civil Appeals at Amarillo.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reformed the judgment in matters not material to the appeal and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Did the original oil and gas lease terminate when drilling on a gas-only pooled unit resulted in an oil well after the primary term expired, and subsequent drilling on the leased land occurred after the lease's specific grace periods for operations had passed? 2. Is a subsequent oil and gas lease considered a "renewal or extension" of a prior terminated lease, thereby perpetuating an overriding royalty interest, when the assignment creating the royalty explicitly relieved the assignee of any obligation to keep the lease in force?
Opinions:
Majority - Greenhill, Justice
No, the original oil and gas lease terminated under its own terms, and the subsequent lease was not a "renewal or extension" that perpetuated Parkes' overriding royalty interest. The court first determined that the 60-day and 30-day clauses in paragraph 5 of the original lease, which govern operations at or after the primary term's expiration, did not keep the lease in force. The 60-day clause, activated by a dry hole or cessation of production, was not triggered because the unit well produced oil (not a dry hole) and was for a gas-only unit, meaning it did not constitute "production" to hold the lease. The 30-day clause, which pertains to continuous prosecution of operations, was also not met because the unit well was off-premises and not a gas producer, and subsequent drilling on the 160 acres commenced after the grace period had expired. Therefore, the original lease had expired. Second, the court held that the new lease was not an "extension" or "renewal" of the old lease because it was executed under different circumstances, for new consideration ($27,000), upon substantially different terms, and over a year after the old lease had terminated. Crucially, the assignment from Parkes included a clause explicitly relieving the assignee (Sunac et al.) of any obligation to keep the lease in force by drilling or payment of rentals, and granting the right to surrender it without Parkes' consent. This provision, read in conjunction with the "renewal or extension" language, negated any implied fiduciary duty that might otherwise compel the assignee to perpetuate the overriding royalty in a new lease. The court found no basis for imposing a constructive trust or estoppel, as Sunac's payments after the new lease did not constitute a material misrepresentation or cause Parkes prejudice.
Dissenting - Hamilton, Justice
Yes, the new lease should be considered a renewal of the old lease, and the original lease did remain in force. Justice Hamilton argued that the new lease was a "renewal" based on the conduct of all parties, who treated the original lease as being in effect until it was "effectively canceled" by the new lease. He emphasized that the lessors and lessees settled a dispute over the original lease's validity by entering into the new lease, with Sunac continuing operations without interruption and even paying Parkes his override for several months under the new lease, thus admitting it was a renewal. Furthermore, he contended that the "extension or renewal" provision in Parkes' assignment inherently created a fiduciary relationship between the assignee (Sunac) and assignor (Parkes), requiring Sunac to act in utmost good faith. He cited numerous authorities supporting that such a clause, in itself, establishes a fiduciary duty to protect the overriding royalty in subsequent leases, regardless of whether a personal confidential relationship existed. He disagreed with the majority's interpretation that the "no obligation to keep lease in force" clause destroyed this fiduciary duty, arguing it merely reiterated existing lease provisions and did not negate the trust established by the "renewal or extension" language. Alternatively, Justice Hamilton argued that the original 1948 lease did remain in force because the completion of an oil well on a gas-only unit should have been classified as a "dry hole" for lease purposes. Under this interpretation, the lease's 60-day clause for commencing additional drilling after a dry hole would have been activated, making Sunac's subsequent drilling on the 160 acres timely and perpetuating the lease.
Analysis:
This case provides critical guidance on the interplay between "extension or renewal" clauses for overriding royalties and "no obligation to develop" clauses in oil and gas assignments. It clarifies that a broad disclaimer of development obligations can negate the fiduciary relationship typically implied by "extension or renewal" language, thereby preventing the perpetuation of overriding royalties into subsequent leases acquired after the original lease's termination. The decision also reinforces the strict interpretation of lease termination clauses, particularly the 30-day and 60-day grace periods for operations and dry holes, emphasizing that production type (oil vs. gas) and location (on-premises vs. pooled unit) are determinative. This outcome places a significant burden on overriding royalty interest owners to negotiate robust anti-washout clauses or explicit fiduciary duties if they wish their interest to survive past the initial lease term when an assignee is relieved of development obligations.
