Articles Posted in Recent Cases

The Texas Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a case that could have important implications for landowners and oil and gas exploration companies: Merriman v. XTO Energy, No. 11-0494. Merriman’s attorneys are asking the Court to reverse the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, at Waco, which they contend has consistently mis-interpreted the Supreme Court’s rulings on the accommodation doctrine.

The “accommodation doctrine” is a court-made doctrine relating to the mineral owner’s right to use the surface estate to drill for and produce minerals. The mineral estate is the “dominant estate,” meaning that the owner of the mineral estate has the right to use so much of the surface estate as is reasonably necessary for exploration and development of the minerals, without compensation to the surface owner for such use. (This includes the right to use groundwater for oil and gas operations, even though the groundwater belongs to the owner of the surface estate.) The Supreme Court has held that, notwithstanding the mineral owner’s right to use the surface, the mineral owner must under some circumstances “accommodate” the surface owner’s existing use of his land. The doctrine requires a balancing of the interests of the surface and mineral owner. In 1993, the Supreme Court said: “if the mineral owner has reasonable alternative uses of the surface, one of which permits the surface owner to continue to use the surface in the manner intended (especially when there is only one reasonable manner in which the surface may be used) and one of which would preclude that use by the surface owner, the mineral owner must use the alternative that allows continued use of the surface by the surface owner.” Tarrant County Water Control & Impr. Dist. No. 1 v. Haupt, Inc., 854 S.W.2d 909, 912 (Tex. 1993).

Homer Merriman, the plaintiff in this case, owns 40 acres in Limestone County. When he bought the land, the seller reserved the mineral estate and the land was then subject to an oil and gas lease. Merriman built his home on the land. Although he works full-time as a pharmacist, Merriman also runs cattle. He leases land in Limestone County for grazing, and once a year he uses his 40 acres to round up and work his cattle, with portable pens that are assembled for the operation and then taken down. The rest of the year he grazes cattle on the 40 acres, where he also lives.

Last week, a Texas district court ruled that Jimmy McAllen could keep his $20 million arbitration award against Forest Oil Corp. This fight goes back to 1992, when Forest Oil gave McAllen used drilling pipe to build animal enclosures on his exotic wildlife ranch, on which McAllen kept rhinoceroses. The pipe had scale that contained radioactive materials, and McAllen claimed that it made the animals ill. McAllen also contracted cancer, which he blamed on the pipe. McAllen also alleged that Forest secretly buried mercury, drilling waste and other radioactive material on his property. McAllen sued Forest in 2005. Forest claimed that McAllen was required to arbitrate the dispute under the terms of a prior settlement agreement between Forest and McAllen arising out of a suit for unpaid royalties. Forest’s argument eventually made it to the Texas Supreme Court, which held that the prior settlement agreement was binding on McAllen and required him to arbitrate the dispute. Forest Oil Corp. v. McAllen, 268 S.W.3d 51 (Tex. 2008).

The case then went to an arbitration panel consisting of Houston attorney Daryl Bristow and South Texas attorneys Clayton J. Hoover and Donato D. Ramos. On February 29, 2012, the panel issued a split decision, 2-1, awarding McAllen $21.9 million plus $5 million in attorneys’ fees and additional injunctive relief requiring Forest to post a $10 million bond for the life of the lease to assure cleanup of any pollution found on the ranch. In a 40-page dissent, Daryl Bristow said that the panel’s award “turn[ed] the law on its ear” and “fabricate[s] a damages number without any principled foundation in the record.”

Forest then filed suit to overturn the award. On September 19, Judge Jeff Shadwick, of the 55th District Court in Harris County, denied Forest’s motion to overturn the award. The court’s order said that “the panel reached its conclusions based on little to no admissible evidence,” but that this “is one of the unfortunate hazards of arbitration.” “The court is not at liberty to substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrators merely because it would have reached a different decision.” Judge Shadwick did overturn the arbitration panel’s requirement that Forest post a bond for future cleanup, saying that the panel had no jurisdiction to issue such relief.

The Texas Supreme Court issued two important condemnation cases on the last day of its term, both reversing judgments after jury trials in condemnation suits.

In City of Austin v. Harry M. Whittington, the court resolved the Whittington’s ten-year battle with the City over condemnation of a city block adjacent to the City’s convention center. The jury found that the City’s determination that its condemnation of the property was for a “public use” was fraudulent, in bad faith, and arbitrary and capricious. The Court said that “the Whittingtons do not dispute the underlying facts on these issues; rather, they dispute the legal effect of those facts (e.g., whether those facts amount to fraud, bad faith, or arbitrariness and capriciousness). Because these issues are legal questions, we review them de novo.” In other words, the Court held that it was not bound to support the jury’s verdict, but could look at the evidence and decide for itself. It decided that the evidence did not show that the City was guilty of fraud, bad faith, or arbitrary or capricious behavior. The City condemned the block for a private developer to build a parking garage for the convention center. Two Justices dissented.  (My firm represented the Whittingtons in this case.)

In Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Avinger Timber, the jury awarded Avinger $20,955,000 for Enbridge’s condemnation of a site owned by Avinger on which a gas processing plant was located. The site was subject to a long-term lease that expired, and when the parties were unable to agree on terms for extension of the lease, Enbridge sued to condemn the property. The issue on appeal was whether the testimony of the valuation experts for Enbridge and Avinger was admissible. The Court held that both experts’ testimony was inadmissible and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial. The Court held that the landowner’s appraiser violated the “value-to-the-taker” rule–meaning that he impermissibly took into account the unique value of the land to the condemning gas processing company (as opposed to considering the value to a hypothetical willing buyer, as the law requires). In particular, the appraiser had taken into account the cost to the company of removing the plant on the land if it were sold; the Court held that the appraiser should not have factored in those costs because that was a cost unique to the condemnor and not one that impacted the value of the land to a potential buyer.

The Texas Supreme Court has once again reversed a jury verdict in favor of a royalty owner, holding that their claim is barred by limitations. The Court today issued its opinion in Shell Oil Company v Ross, reversing the judgments of the courts below in favor of Ross for $72,000 in unpaid royalties.

I wrote about this case back in January, see my previous post here.

Ross’ lease required that royalties on gas be based on the “amount realized” by the lessee. But from 1988 to 1994 Shell paid royalties based on a weighted-average price instead of the price it received for the gas. Then from 1994 to 1997, Shell paid royalties based on an internally generated “transfer price,” which Shell admitted it could not explain. In both cases, Shell admitted that it had not paid royalties as required by the lease. Its sole defense was that the royalty owner had failed to bring his claim within the four-year statute of limiations.

Another interesting case is pending before the Texas Supreme Court, this one involving condemnation of a pipeline easement. The San Antonio Court of Appeals, in LaSalle Pipeline v. Donnell Lands, affirmed a jury verdict awarding $650,000 to the landowner. The Supreme Court has asked for briefs on the merits but has not yet agreed to hear the case.

The Donnell family own an 8,000-acre ranch in McMullen County. LaSalle Pipeline sued to condemn an easement for a sixteen-inch gas pipeline across the ranch, for a length of 4.4 miles. In Texas, a condemnation case originally goes to three “commissioners” – citizens in the county appointed by the court to determine the amount to be awarded the landowner for the pipeline easement. The commissioners awarded the Donnells $226,000 for the easement – about $160 per rod, or $9.73 per foot. (A rod is 16.5 feet.) The Donnells appealed to the district court in McMullen County, where there was a trial de novo, meaning that the commissioners’ award was not considered and the jury was asked to determine the amount of the award based on evidence at the trial.

There are three elements of damages in a pipeline condemnation case: the damage to the land within the permanent easement; the temporary damage caused to the land by the additional workspace needed to lay the pipeline; and the diminution in value of the remaining property caused by the existence of the pipeline. These damages are estimated by qualified real estate appraisers, who testify as experts at the trial.

Mineral owners have lost another substantial verdict against an oil company based on their failure to bring the claim within four years. In Samson Lone Star v. Hooks, No. 01-09-00328-CV, the Houston First District Court of Appeals reversed a verdict and judgment against Samson for $21 million, holding that the claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations as a matter of law — even though the jury had found that the Hooks should not have discovered Samson’s fraudulent conduct until April 2007, less than four years prior to their suit.

The case is reminiscent of a similar case, Exxon v. Emerald, decided by the Texas Supreme Court in 2009, in which the Supreme Court reversed an $18 million verdict against Exxon, again on the basis that the mineral owners’ claims were barred by limitations — despite an express finding by the jury that the plaintiffs had filed their claim within four years after they discovered or should have discovered Exxon’s fraudulent conduct. (Pat Lochridge, the lawyer who represented Exxon in the trial court in Exxon v. Emerald, represented the plaintiffs in Samson v. Hooks. You win some, you lose some.)

The Supreme Court did it again in BP v. Marshall, decided earlier this year. Again the Court overruled a jury verdict in favor of royalty owners, holding that their claim was barred by limitations as a matter of law.