The Legal Implications of 1/8 Double Fraction Clauses in Mineral Reservations | Van Dyke v. Navigator Group case
Van Dyke v. Navigator Grp., 668 S.W.3d 353 (Tex. 2023). Interpreting double fractions (1/2 of the usual 1/8) and Presumed Grant.
Posts by:
Benjamin Holliday
Understanding Custom Lease Provisions | Devon Energy Prod. Co., L.P. v. Sheppard
Devon Energy Prod. Co., L.P. v. Sheppard, 668 S.W.3d 332 (Tex. 2023). Post-Sale Postproduction Costs.
Forum Selection Clauses and Trespass to Try Title v. Declaratory Judgment
In SM Energy v Union Pac. R.R. Co., the Texas Court of Appeals for Eastland held that SM Energy’s cause of action constituted a claim for declaratory judgment rather than trespass-to-try-title. Additionally, the court held that Texas courts did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the claims and allowed enforcement of the lease’s forum selection clause.
Texas Will Interpretation Guidelines
Prather v. Callon Petroleum Operating Co., Inc., 648 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2022, no pet.). Will Construction.
In Prather v. Callon Petroleum Co., the Eleventh Court of Appeals held that the phrase “survivor(s) thereof,” in the context of a testator’s will, constituted words of survivorship. This dispute centered on whether the testator intended the phrase to create a requirement that the listed beneficiaries survive the testator or whether the testator intended the phrase to prevent a lapse, thus allowing the heirs of the designated beneficiaries to take in their place. The court relied on principles of will construction handed down by the Supreme Court of Texas in prior cases and concluded that the phrase created a requirement that the beneficiaries survive the testator in order to take from the will.
Texas Fourth Court Addresses Post-Production Costs
EnerVest Operating, LLC v. Mayfield, No. 04-21-00337, WL 4492785 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Sep. 28, 2022).
Deduction of Fuel Gas from Total Royalties Owed to Lessor.
In EnerVest Operating, LLC v. Mayfield, the Fourth Court of Appeals held that per the subject oil and gas leases, deductions from royalties were proper when attributed to post-production costs, reversing the lower court’s decision. Accordingly, the Court analyzed whether fuel gas was a properly deducted post-production cost from the lessors’ total royalties under the specific language of the leases at issue. The appellate court concluded royalty deductions for fuel gas use in this instance were proper.