Butcher v. Okmar Oil Co.

Decision Date17 January 1977
Citation65 Cal.App.3d 972,135 Cal.Rptr. 713
PartiesDan E. BUTCHER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. OKMAR OIL COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 49493.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
FLEMING, Acting Presiding Justice

The action is based on Code of Civil Procedure section 751.3 (see Appendix) enacted in 1971 'in the public interest that due procedures be established to make it possible to free, for surface use, land in urban areas which is not reasonably needed for oil and gas operations.' (Stats.1971, ch. 1586, sec. 3.) Section 751.3 provides in pertinent part that the owner of land encumbered by a right of entry in a lease for the production of oil may bring an action to terminate the right of entry to all or part of the land. The evidence must show (1) the lease or its latest amendment affecting the right of entry is more than twenty years old; (2) the land to be freed of the right of entry is not occupied by a producing well; and (3) termination of the right of entry will not significantly interfere with the right of the lessee to continue to produce oil in a practical and economic manner, utilizing appropriate production techniques consistent with good oil field practice, and to gather, transport, and market the oil. The court may qualify termination of a right of entry with equitable conditions, including imposition of limited easements in favor of the lessee and the requirement that the lessor pay for relocation of pipes, roads, and equipment to free the land for use while safeguarding oil operations in a practical and economic manner.

Plaintiff owns three lots in the City of Torrance subject to an oil lease executed in 1938 by predecessors of plaintiff and defendant. The lease gives defendant exclusive right to drill for and extract oil and gas from, and to store the oil and gas upon, the land, 'including all rights necessary and convenient thereto, together with rights-of-way for passage over, upon and across, and ingress and egress to and from, said land, for any or all of the above mentioned purposes. The possession by the Lessee of said land shall be sole and exclusive, excepting only that the Lessor reserves the right to occupy said land or to lease the same for agricultural, horticultural, or grazing uses, which uses shall be carried on subject to, and with no interference with, the rights or operations of the Lessee hereunder.'

Plaintiff's complaint, as amended at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, seeks termination of defendant's right to entry to that portion of the three lots not currently occupied by two producing oil wells and three oil tanks.

On its motion for summary judgment, defendant offered the affidavit of Adolph Beren, a partner in the defendant lessee. Beren declared in pertinent part as follows:

'(Defendant) is operating two (2) producing oil wells on the lands. Oil and other hydrocarbon substances from these wells is moved through a pipe network on the lands into large storage tanks on the lands. When repairs or well maintenance is required, large service trucks gain ingress and egress to the site over internal driveways and roads.

'(Defendant) needs the entire surface of the described lands to continue to conduct operations in a practical and economic manner for production of oil. Good oilfield practice and techniques consistent therewith require that the surface of these lands he used or capable of use to gather, transport and market the large quantities of oil produced from this leasehold. (Defendant) requires means of ingress, egress, and surface access from one portion to another of the surface of the lands.

'The present storage tanks on the lands occupy an area which bisects lands that may soon be required for street easements. At such time, (Defendant) will be required to relocate the tanks onto other portions of the lands. Relocation of the tanks will require re-routing of the pipeline network. Local ordinances require that when the storage tanks are relocated, they must be kept at least a substantial distance away from the nearest adjoining property line.

'All of the leased facilities not on the land are used and are reasonably necessary for future use in connection with production of oil. Any reduction of (Defendant's) use of the entire surface of the land would seriously impair the contract rights granted by Paragraphs 8, 21 and 27 of the lease, and seriously interfere with (Defendant's) production on such lands.'

Beren's affidavit established an absolute defense to the complaint in that a right of way cannot be terminated where termination would significantly interfere with the right of the lessee to continue to produce oil in a practical and economic manner, utilizing appropriate production techniques consistent with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Tresemer v. Barke
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 22, 1978
    ...that plaintiff's causes of action against him were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. (Cf. Butcher v. Okmar Oil Co. (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 972, 975-976, 135 Cal.Rptr. 713.) 3] Although generally a personal injury claim accrues and the period of limitations commences when the wr......
  • Donlan v. Weaver
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 1, 1981
    ...manner ... and to gather, transport and market the oil." (§ 772.040, subd. (c) (see fn. 4, ante); Butcher v. Okmar Oil Co. (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 972, 974-975, 135 Cal.Rptr. 713.) To insure that no significant interference results, the court is expressly empowered by the statute to impose suc......
  • Page v. City of Montebello
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 26, 1980
    ...672] employee. Since no triable issue of fact appears in the case at bench, summary judgment was proper. (Butcher v. Okmar Oil Co. (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 972, 135 Cal.Rptr. 713.) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Each party shall bear their or its own costs on LILLIE, Acting P. J., and TI......
  • Advanced Dev. Holdings v. Brea Canon Oil Co. Inc
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 14, 2010
    ...to produce oil in an appropriate manner." (12 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, Real Property, § 798, p. 927; see Butcher v. Okmar Oil Co. (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 972, 974; Code Civ. Proc., § 772.040.) Although anyowner of a "fee interest in the surface of the leasehold lands" may bring an a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT