Superior Oil Company v. Roberts
398 S.W.2d 276 (1966)
Rule of Law:
A cotenant who has not signed an oil and gas lease or unitization agreement covering a tract of land is not entitled to a share of production from other lands within the unitized area, even if other cotenants in their tract have signed such agreements, if no wells were drilled on the non-consenting cotenant's specific tract and no contractual relationship exists with the unit operator.
Facts:
- Newman Roberts, Rosa Lee Hartman, and Olen Stafford owned an undivided one-half interest in six specific town lots (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12 in Block W of the Hawley Addition to Altair, Colorado County, Texas).
- James Craven and Estella Todd owned the other undivided one-half interest in the same six town lots.
- On September 29, 1947, James Craven and his wife executed an oil, gas, and mineral lease to The Superior Oil Company, purporting to cover all six town lots.
- On October 6, 1947, Estella Todd executed a similar oil, gas, and mineral lease to The Superior Oil Company, also describing the same six town lots.
- Both the Craven and Todd leases included a provision pooling and unitizing the leased lands with the "Unitization and Unit Operating Agreement in the Altair Field, Colorado County, Texas," an agreement covering several hundred acres.
- The Superior Oil Company obtained production from the unitized Altair Field, but no wells were drilled on the specific six town lots in which Newman Roberts, Rosa Lee Hartman, and Olen Stafford held an interest, nor within 1200 feet of them.
- The Superior Oil Company offered to lease Newman Roberts, Rosa Lee Hartman, and Olen Stafford's interest in the town lots, but they refused to execute any lease agreement and consequently received no payments from the minerals produced from the unitized area.
- The Superior Oil Company accounted for royalty payments by considering the Craven and Todd leases as representing one and a half acres (the total acreage of the lots), rather than the actual one-half interest owned by Craven and Todd, and paid royalties to Craven and Todd (or their heirs) accordingly.
Procedural Posture:
- Newman Roberts, Rosa Lee Hartman, and Olen Stafford (plaintiffs) sued The Superior Oil Company (defendant) and other parties in the trial court.
- The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- The Superior Oil Company (petitioner) sought review from 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:
Is a cotenant who refuses to lease their undivided interest in land, which is then purportedly unitized by other cotenants, entitled to a share of oil and gas production from wells located elsewhere within the unitized area, when no wells are drilled on the cotenant's specific tract and no contractual relationship exists with the unit operator?
Opinions:
Majority - Norvell, Justice
No, a cotenant who refuses to lease their undivided interest in land, which is then purportedly unitized by other cotenants, is not entitled to a share of oil and gas production from wells located elsewhere within the unitized area, when no wells are drilled on the cotenant's specific tract and no contractual relationship exists with the unit operator. The Court reasoned that any actions taken by Superior Oil Company in conjunction with James Craven and Estella Todd could not place the plaintiffs' property under lease or make it part of a unitized area without the plaintiffs' consent or acquiescence. Since no minerals were produced from the plaintiffs' specific property, and they had no contractual relationship with Superior Oil Company or other interest holders in the unitized lands, they acquired no rights to minerals produced from the unit but not from their specific land. The Court adopted the reasoning of Boggess v. Milam, which held that a unitization agreement does not merge titles or create contractual rights for a cotenant who refuses to join the lease or agreement. The Court further noted that the plaintiffs were attempting to claim the beneficial provisions of such contracts while repudiating the unfavorable portions thereof, which would limit their claim to the same rights as those held by their cotenants who joined the lease, namely, royalty rights only; this position was deemed untenable.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the rights of non-consenting cotenants in oil and gas unitization agreements, particularly regarding production from off-tract wells. It reinforces the principle that a cotenant who does not sign a lease or unitization agreement maintains their original undivided interest in the specific tract and is not bound by the actions of other cotenants in pooling their interests. The decision emphasizes the necessity of direct contractual consent for a cotenant to participate in the benefits of a unitized area, especially when their specific land is not drilled. This limits potential 'free-riding' by non-consenting parties while also protecting their independent property rights and the integrity of contractual agreements.
