Johnson v. Hamill
| Decision Date | 28 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 11072,11072 |
| Citation | 392 N.W.2d 55 |
| Parties | Raymond J. JOHNSON, Elna C. Johnson, Richard D. Johnson and Clifford A. Johnson, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Claud B. HAMILL; Terra Resources, Inc., formerly Farmland International Energy Company; Solar Petroleum, Inc.; Paris-Williston Corporation now doing business as Burgan Resources Corporation; Koch Exploration Company; TXO Production Corporation; Daharavi Investments N.V.; Dover Fiduciary Corporation; and Theo-Davies-Williston, Inc., Defendants and Appellees. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Michel W. Stefonowicz, Crosby, Jeffrey J. Peterson, Bowbells, and C.B. Thames, Jr., Bismarck, for plaintiffs and appellants; argued by Jeffrey J. Peterson; appearances by Michel W. Stefonowicz and C.B. Thames, Jr.
Fleck, Mather, Strutz & Mayer, Bismarck, for defendants and appellees; argued by Jane Fleck Romanov.
The Johnsons (lessors) appealed from a district court judgment dismissing their action against the defendants (hereinafter referred to as either Terra or the lessees) for cancellation of an oil and gas lease. We affirm.
Raymond and Elna Johnson own the surface and mineral estates in the following land, comprising 678.32 acres in Divide County:
Township 161 North, Range 102 West
Section 19: NW 1/4
Township 161 North, Range 103 West
Section 25: W 1/2NE 1/4, SE 1/4NW 1/4, NW 1/4SE 1/4, N 1/2NW 1/4
Richard and Clifford Johnson own one-half of the mineral owner's royalty interest in a part of the above-described property.
On February 9, 1974, the lessors executed an oil and gas lease of the land to Tom A. Schwartz for a primary term of seven years. The lessees are assignees of Schwartz.
No wells have been drilled on the leasehold. The 40 acres located in the S 1/2 of Section 25 (NW 1/4SE 1/4), however, are located in a 320-acre spacing unit covering all of the S 1/2 of Section 25, upon which two producing oil wells are located and from which the Johnsons are receiving royalty payments.
In 1980 and 1981, the lessors received offers to lease parts of their land, but the offers did not result in leases because all of the leasehold was held by production from the 40 acres located within the spacing unit on the S 1/2 of Section 25.
By letters of January 5, 1982, to the lessees, the lessors asserted expiration of the primary term of the lease and requested release of the lease except for the NW 1/4SE 1/4 of Section 25. On February 3, 1982, the lessors served upon the lessees notice, pursuant to Sec. 47-16-36, N.D.C.C., that the lease (except for the NW 1/4SE 1/4 in Section 25) "has terminated or become forfeited by breach of the terms hereof" and demanded a surrender of the lease. The lessees responded as required by statute. By letters of June 7, 1982, the lessors demanded of the lessees
By summons and complaint filed in the district court on January 25, 1983, the lessors sought a judgment decreeing "that the lease has terminated as to those portions of the leased property lying outside the existing governmental spacing unit," or, in the alternative, decreeing "that Defendants comply with the duties to reasonably develop and further explore the leased property within a time set by the Court or file a release of record." The complaint was later amended to seek damages for oil and gas alleged to have been lost by drainage.
The trial court found that "[n]o substantial drainage, if any at all, has occurred or is occurring"; that Terra has conducted itself as a prudent operator; and that "[t]here has been no breach by the defendants of any implied covenant to develop, explore or protect the Johnson lease." The lessors have appealed from the judgment dismissing their complaint and amended complaint. They have raised the following issues, which relate only to the implied covenants and not to the matter of drainage:
Essentially, the lessors allege that the lessees have breached implied covenants because of a lack of development or exploration and seek either the drilling of a well or forfeiture of the lease. The lessees allege that they have acted as a prudent operator in not yet drilling; that they have explored; and that they wish to and are entitled to retain the lease while, as a prudent operator, they await further developments in nearby wells.
Development and exploration are not carried out only by drilling operations. They are also performed by such other activities as geophysical surveys and farm-out operations [Felmont Oil Corp. v. Pan American Petroleum Corp., 334 S.W.2d 449 (Tex.Civ.App.1960) ]; efforts to gather geological information [Dupree v. Relco Exploration Co., Inc., 354 So.2d 1083 (La.App.1978) ]; and "participation in the preliminary play to an eventual deep test in the area" [Frazier v. Justiss Mears Oil Co., Inc., 391 So.2d 485, 488 (La.App.1980) ]. See also 5 H. Williams and C. Meyers, Oil and Gas Law Sec. 843.8 (1985).
A lessee must "prosecute drilling operations with reasonable diligence" [Hermon Hanson Oil Syndicate v. Bentz, 77 N.D. 20, 40 N.W.2d 304, 308 (1949) ], "having regard to the interests of both lessor and lessee" [Brewster v. Lanyon Zinc Co., 140 F. 801, 814 (8th Cir.1905) ]. In Olson v. Schwartz, 345 N.W.2d 33, 38 (N.D.1984), we stated:
While a lessee may consider its own interests in operating, developing, and protecting a leasehold, Terra's assertion that a prudent operator is only required to drill when it would be profitable to do so goes too far. Relying on Doss Oil Royalty Co. v. Texas Co., 192 Okla. 359, 137 P.2d 934 (1943), we held in Olson v. Schwartz, supra, that a lessor may be entitled to relief upon a theory of breach of the implied covenant of reasonable development 1 where a long period of time passes without drilling on substantial unexplored portions of a leasehold held by production on part of the leasehold without proving that a well on the undeveloped portion would be profitable. See also Sauder v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 292 U.S. 272, 54 S.Ct. 671, 78 L.Ed. 1255 (1934); Sinclair Oil & Gas Co. v. Masterson, 271 F.2d 310 (5th Cir.1959); Texas Consolidated Oils v. Vann, 208 Okla. 673, 258 P.2d 679 (1953); 5 H. Williams and C. Meyers, Oil and Gas Law Secs. 806.3, 841-847 (1985).
In Olson v. Schwartz, supra, 345 N.W.2d at 39, we stated that:
We also set forth, at 345 N.W.2d 39-40, a nonexclusive list of factors to be considered in applying the prudent-operator standard:
"(1) the quantity of oil and gas capable of being produced as indicated by prior exploration and development; (2) the local market and demand therefor; (3) the extent and results of the operations, if any, on adjacent lands; (4) the character of the natural reservoir--whether such as to permit the drainage of a large area by each well; (5) the usages of the business; (6) the cost of drilling, equipment, and operation of wells; (7) the cost of transportation, storage, and the prevailing price ... (8) general market conditions as influenced by supply and demand or by regulation of production through governmental agencies ... (9) evidence of the willingness of another operator to drill on the tract in question; (10) the attitude of the lessee toward further development; and (11) the elapsed time since drilling operations were last conducted." [Citations omitted.]
A lessor alleging breach of implied covenants is not entitled to forfeiture of a lease until he has notified the lessee of the breach, demanded that the terms of the implied covenant be complied with within a reasonable time, and given the lessee a reasonable time for such compliance. Olson v. Schwartz, supra. In this case, the lessors first demanded compliance with the implied covenants on June 7, 1982, although they had previously requested release of the lease and had previously asserted that the lease was forfeited. The lessors brought suit for cancellation in January 1983.
The lessees have asserted that our review is governed by Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P. The lessors have asserted: (1) that the trial court's decision is based on an erroneous conception of the law of implied covenants; (2) that the question of what a prudent operator should do is one of law; and (3) that if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Serhienko v. Kiker, 11039
...Sheffield v. Exxon Corp., 424 So.2d 1297, 1303 (Ala.1982).We further note that this court's recent decision in Johnson v. Hamill, 392 N.W.2d 55, Civil No. 11,072 (N.D.1986), has no application to the present case. In Hamill, this court addressed a lessee's duties under the implied covenant ......
-
State v. Skjonsby
...the complaining party bears the burden of demonstrating that error exists in the trial court's findings of fact. E.g., Johnson v. Hamill, 392 N.W.2d 55, 59 (N.D.1986); Byron v. Gerring Industries, Inc., 328 N.W.2d 819, 821 Skjonsby contends that the results of psychological tests conducted ......
-
Hieb v. Jelinek
...or nullified unless it contains an express termination clause which allows termination for breach of a lease condition. Johnson v. Hamill, 392 N.W.2d 55 (N.D.1986). Because the prompt tendering of rent was an express condition of the lease contract, and because Adolph failed to promptly ten......
-
ANR Western Coal Dev. v. Basin Electric Power
...toward further development; and (10) the time elapsed since mining operations were last conducted. See id.; see also Johnson v. Hamill, 392 N.W.2d 55, 57-58 (N.D. 1986). Not all of the factors identified in Olson are relevant to this case. 13. Based upon our conclusion, WCDC's post-trial mo......