Thomas Gilcrease Foundation v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.
153 Tex. 197, 266 S.W.2d 850, 3 Oil & Gas Rep. 673 (1954)
Rule of Law:
An 'entirety clause' in an oil and gas lease, which provides for the apportionment of royalties across the entire leased premises, applies even when the lessor's ownership consists of varying undivided interests in different segregated portions of the leased land at the time the lease is executed, thereby requiring royalties to be paid proportionally from the total production of the whole tract.
Facts:
- First National Bank of Fort Worth (Bank) owned all of the mineral estate in the N.E. quarter and an undivided 1/4th interest in the N.W. quarter of Section 32.
- In 1929, the Bank conveyed an undivided 3/4ths interest in the N.E. quarter and an undivided 1/4th interest in the N.W. quarter to Gilcrease Oil Company.
- On February 19, 1946, the Bank executed an oil and gas lease to Stanolind Oil and Gas Company (Stanolind) covering the north 1/2 of Section 32, which included a lesser estate clause.
- The following month, Gilcrease Oil Company executed an oil and gas lease to Stanolind covering the same north 1/2 of Section 32, reserving a $160,000 oil payment and including an 'entirety clause'.
- Gilcrease Oil Company subsequently conveyed all its interest in the leased property to Gilcrease Foundation (Foundation).
- Upon development, the N.W. quarter proved to be significantly more productive of oil than the N.E. quarter.
- The Foundation owned an undivided 3/4ths mineral interest in the N.E. quarter and an undivided 1/4th interest in the N.W. quarter, while other parties (Bank, Tidewater Oil Company, Sunray Oil Company) owned the remaining undivided interests in the N.W. quarter.
- On April 2, 1947, the Foundation, Bank, Tidewater, and Sunray executed an agreement affirming their respective undivided interests in the N.W. quarter.
Procedural Posture:
- Gilcrease Foundation (petitioner) filed suit against Stanolind Oil and Gas Company (respondent) in the district court for a declaratory judgment to establish its right to receive royalty based on the entirety clause.
- The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the petitioner, Gilcrease Foundation.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case.
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 'entirety clause' in an oil and gas lease, stipulating that if leased premises 'are now or shall hereafter be owned, in severalty or in separate tracts,' royalties shall be divided proportionally based on acreage owned, apply when the lessor's interest in the leased land consists of undivided, but differing, fractional interests in separate quarter sections at the time of the lease's execution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Culver
Yes, an 'entirety clause' in an oil and gas lease does apply when the lessor's interest in the leased land consists of undivided, but differing, fractional interests in separate quarter sections at the time of the lease's execution, thereby requiring royalties to be paid proportionally from the total production of the whole tract. The Court reasoned that the phrase 'owned in severalty or in separate tracts,' especially when coupled with 'are now,' encompasses the situation where the lessor holds varying undivided interests in segregated portions of the leased premises at the time the lease is made. The Court found this interpretation consistent with the purpose of entirety clauses, which were developed to address the hardships of the Texas and majority rule (where royalties belong to the owner of the specific tract where a well is located) by allowing for the unified development and equitable apportionment of royalties across the entire leased property. Citing cases like Gypsy Oil Company v. Schonwald and Schrader v. Gypsy Oil Co., the Court highlighted that previous decisions applied entirety clauses even when the lessor conveyed an undivided interest in only a part of the whole tract, thereby treating such partial, undivided ownerships as 'separate estates' for the purpose of the clause. The Court rejected Stanolind's argument that the clause only applies if the entire mineral interest in a portion is wholly owned by one or more persons, noting this would contravene the clause's intent. The Court also dismissed Stanolind's argument regarding another lease provision preventing enlargement of lessee obligations, stating it merely ensures existing obligations aren't changed, not that the extent of those obligations cannot be determined by other clauses like the entirety clause. Finally, an agreement among the mineral owners defining their respective interests was deemed not to override the lease's terms, as parties can contract for proportional royalty distribution despite varying ownership percentages.
Dissenting - Associate Justice Smedley
Associate Justice Smedley dissented from the majority opinion. The specific reasoning for the dissent is not detailed in the provided case text.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of 'entirety clauses' in oil and gas leases in Texas, particularly when a lessor holds complex, undivided interests across different parts of a larger leased tract. By confirming that such clauses apply even to existing, undivided, and varying interests, the decision promotes the equitable apportionment of royalties and facilitates unified development of leased properties. This interpretation helps prevent disputes arising from disproportionate production across segments of a lease and reinforces the contractual freedom of parties to agree on royalty distribution mechanisms that deviate from the traditional 'non-apportionment rule.' It provides greater predictability for both lessors and lessees when dealing with fragmented or undivided mineral estates.
