31-869 La.App. 2 Cir. 5/5/99, Dupree v. Oil, Gas & Other Minerals
| Decision Date | 05 May 1999 |
| Citation | 731 So.2d 1067 |
| Parties | 31-869 La.App. 2 Cir |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Bethard & Bethard by James G. Bethard, Coushatta, Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Leon Rudloff, New Orleans, Counsel for Defendants-Appellees.
Hayden, Moore and Ryan by G. Scott Moore, Monroe, Counsel for the Watzek Family, Defendants-Appellees.
Watson, Murchison, Crews, Arthur & Corkern by Daniel T. Murchison, Sr., Jason Methvin, Natchitoches, Counsel for Rosemary Burns Upshaw, DefendantAppellee.
Before PEATROSS, KOSTELKA and DREW, JJ.
[31-869 La.App. 2 Cir. 2] DREW, J.
The sole issue before the court in this matter is whether mineral servitude owners who executed mineral leases are liable to the surface owners for damages to the surface caused by their bankrupt lessee. Finding that La. R.S. 31:22 mandates this obligation, we reverse summary judgment and remand this case to the trial court.
D.I. Dupree and Michael Simpson ("Landowners") own a tract of land consisting of 1,724 acres in Natchitoches and Red River Parishes. The land, purchased on September 30, 1985, was burdened by the reservation of a mineral servitude covering 13/16 of the minerals. At the time this lawsuit was filed, the landowners owned the remaining 3/16 mineral interest. They apparently later acquired a 1/16 mineral interest from Jack Williams. The J.H. Williams # 1 Well ("Williams Well") is located on the tract of land.
On August 17, 1994, the landowners filed a petition for declaratory judgment against Oil, Gas and Other Materials, Inc. ("OGOM"). The landowners alleged in their petition that OGOM executed five separate mineral leases on their land in June and July 1994, and that OGOM was attempting to re-enter the Williams Well and conduct operations pursuant to these leases. The landowners further alleged that the Williams Well reverted to them as surface owners due to the well's abandonment by its former owners and operators, so therefore, OGOM has no right to re-enter the well. The landowners prayed for judgment declaring that the Williams Well belongs to them, that OGOM does not have the right to re-enter the property or perform any operations on the well, and in the event OGOM conducts operations on the Williams Well, these operations benefit only the landowners. OGOM filed for bankruptcy on August 25, 1995.
[31-869 La.App. 2 Cir. 3] On September 13, 1994, OGOM filed the dilatory exception of nonjoinder of necessary parties and the peremptory exception of nonjoinder of indispensable parties 1 because the lessors were not named as defendants in the original petition. The landowners amended their petition on February 16, 1995, to add as defendants, Fred Betz, Jr., Isabella McDonald Betz, Florence Fusilier Mary, Alma Little, Rosemary Burns Upshaw Anderson, Allison Roane Upshaw, Ainsley Scott Upshaw Lewis, John Watzek, Cheryl Nutt Watzek, the Watzek Family Partnership, Jack Williams and Shelby Jean Clay a.k.a. Shelby Jean Partain Williams, hereafter collectively referred to as "lessors" or "servitude owners." The original petition was amended to further allege that OGOM, the servitude owners, their agents, employees and assigns had entered upon the landowners' property and conducted operations resulting in damages to the landowners' cotton crop, land, roads and culverts. The petition was also amended to allege that the defendants used water from a well located on the property without the landowners' permission.
Fred Betz, Isabella Betz, Alma Little and Florence Mary together filed exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action on September 25, 1995. The exceptions were overruled on November 22, 1995. These same four servitude owners filed a motion for summary judgment on November 28, 1995.
The landowners filed a motion to dismiss OGOM on June 24, 1996. A motion to dismiss Jack Williams was filed by the landowners on September 25, 1996. The landowners state in their brief that Williams conveyed to them his 1/16 mineral interest after this lawsuit was filed.
Cheryl Watzek Wollerson, individually and as managing partner of the Watzek Family Partnership, filed a motion for summary judgment on February 6, [31-869 La.App. 2 Cir. 4] 1998. Rosemary Anderson, Allison Upshaw and Ainsley Lewis together filed exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action on March 5, 1998, and a motion for summary judgment on April 3, 1998.
A copy of the Watzek Family Partnership-OGOM lease is attached to the Watzek Family Partnership's motion for summary judgment. According to appellee's brief, the lease used by OGOM is "a standard oil and gas lease that is used extensively industry-wide." Therefore, we will assume the provisions of all the leases executed by the servitude owners are exactly the same as the provisions in the lease attached to the motion for summary judgment. The landowners never entered into any lease agreement with OGOM.
A judgment sustaining the motions for summary judgment and dismissing the landowners' action was signed on April 27, 1998. In its written reasons for judgment, the trial court concluded that as a matter of law, the servitude owners cannot be held liable for surface damages caused by their lessee because once the servitude owners executed the lease, only OGOM had the right of exploration on the property. The landowners now appeal the trial court's judgment. They argue that the servitude owners are responsible for damages caused by OGOM because OGOM was acting on behalf of the lessors.
The servitude owners contend that the duty to restore the land to its previous condition is placed on the entity who actually exercised the right to go on the land to explore and produce minerals. Thus, they argue that when OGOM leased this right from the them, OGOM assumed the responsibility to comply with this duty. The servitude owners have answered this appeal seeking attorney fees for what they characterize as frivolous litigation by the landowners.
A landowner may convey, reserve or lease his right to explore and develop his land for the production of minerals and to reduce them to possession. La. R.S. [31-869 La.App. 2 Cir. 5] 31:15. The basic mineral rights that can be created by a landowner are the mineral servitude, the mineral royalty, and the mineral lease. La. R.S. 31:16. The landowners purchased the tract of land subject to a mineral servitude.
A mineral servitude is the right of enjoyment of land belonging to another for the purpose of exploring for and producing minerals and reducing them to possession and ownership. La. R.S. 31:21. A mineral lease, like a mineral servitude, "conveys rights to explore and develop, to produce minerals, to reduce them to possession, and to assert title to a specified portion of the production." See Comment to La. R.S. 31:16.
The owner of land burdened by a mineral right or rights and the owner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wagoner v. Chevron U.S. Inc.
... ... LSJ Exploration, Diamond South Operating, and Oil & Ale LSJ.Jeansonne & Remondet, Lafayette, LA, by ... BROWN, Chief Judge. [2 Cir. 1] The Wagoner family bought a 193acre tract ... The Wagoners have appealed this ruling and other rulings on other exceptions granted by the trial ... Funderburgs with a reservation of the minerals. The Funderburgs [55 So.3d 29] thereafter sold ... See also Dupree v. Oil, Gas & Other Minerals, 31,869 (La.App.2d ... ...
-
EDMUNDSON BROS. v. Montex Drilling Co.
... ... (Edmundsons) now own 50% of the minerals in these properties. Prior to 1977, Ernest E ... 28, 1977, he conveyed one-half of all oil, gas and other minerals on the properties to ... Lease and, in 1984, drilled the Edmundson # 2 well (EE# 2) on it ... On June ... 3 Cir. 1986), writ denied, 502 So.2d 111 (La ... ...
-
Walton v. Burns
... ... Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Corporation, BP America Production ... use the land for disposal of saltwater and other substances; hence, there was no contract ... v. Goodrich Petr. Co., 061557 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/28/07), 981 So.2d 23, writ denied, 20080298 ... Amerada Hess Corp., 20090298 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/10/10), 47 So.2d 428, 174 Oil & Gas Rep. 19. The ... that one of the cases cited therein, Dupree v. Oil, Gas & Other Minerals, 31,869 (La.App. 2 ... ...
-
Properties v. Welsh
... ... PARRO, GUIDRY, and HUGHES, JJ.GUIDRY, J.[1 Cir. 2] Six C Properties, LLC (Six C), the surface ... upon unlawful procedure;(d) Affected by other error of law;(e) Arbitrary or capricious, or ... Hunt Oil Company v. Batchelor, 933144, p. 11 ... suited, by his expertise in the field of minerals management, to assess the credibility of Mr ... See Dupree v. Oil, Gas & Other Minerals, 31,869 (La.App.2d ... ...
-
Liability Under the Oil Pollution Act: Current Law and Needed Revisions
...premises as required in mineral lease not limited to the market value of the land that was leased); Dupree v. Oil, Gas & Other Minerals, 731 So. 2d 1067 (La. Ct. App. 1999) (mineral servitude owners liable for damage to land caused by the lessee of the servitude owners when the lessee was b......
-
CHAPTER 1 THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING MULTIPLE SURFACE USE ISSUES
...(La.App. 3 Cir. 12/19/01), 815 So.2d 876, 154 O.& G.R. 401, writ denied 828 So.2d 585 (La. 2002); Dupree v. Oil Gas & Other Minerals, 731 So.2d 1067, 142 O.&G.R. 258 (La.App. 1999); Broussard v. Waterbury, 346 So.2d 1342, 58 O.&G.R. 510 (La.App. 1977), writ denied, 350 So.2d 674 (La. 1977).......
-
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING MULTIPLE SURFACE USE ISSUES
...(La.App. 3 Cir. 12/19/01), 815 So.2d 876, 154 O.&G.R. 401, writ denied 828 So.2d 585 (La. 2002); Dupree v. Oil Gas & Other Minerals, 731 So.2d 1067, 142 O.&G.R. 258 (La.App. 1999); Broussard v. Waterbury, 346 So.2d 1342, 58 O.&G.R. 510 (La.App. 1977), writ denied, 350 So.2d 674 (La. 1977). ......