Pummill v. Hancock Exploration LLC

Decision Date05 January 2018
Docket NumberCase Number: 114703
Parties Charles PUMMILL; Mark Parrish ; and Chris Parrish, Jr., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. HANCOCK EXPLORATION LLC; Yale Oil Association, Inc.; Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Cimarex Energy Co.; and Cimarex Energy Co. of Colorado, Defendants/Appellants.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

419 P.3d 1268

Charles PUMMILL; Mark Parrish ; and Chris Parrish, Jr., Plaintiffs/Appellees,
v.
HANCOCK EXPLORATION LLC; Yale Oil Association, Inc.; Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Cimarex Energy Co.; and Cimarex Energy Co. of Colorado, Defendants/Appellants.

Case Number: 114703

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 4.

Decided: January 5, 2018
Mandate Issued: June 20, 2018


Robert N. Barnes, Patranell Britten Lewis, BARNES & LEWIS, L.L.P, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Kerry Caywood, Angela Caywood Jones, PARK, NELSON, CAYWOOD, JONES, L.L.P., Chickasha, Oklahoma and Bradley E. Beckworth, Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Susan Whatley, NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P., Daingerfield, Texas, for Plaintiffs/Appellees.

Richard B. Noulles, Bradley W. Welsh, GABLEGOTWALS, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Jeromy E. Brown, McCALLA BROWN PATEL, LLP, Chickasha, Oklahoma and Nathan K. Davis, SNELL & WILMER, L.L.P., Denver, Colorado, for Defendants/Appellants.

J. Kevin Hayes, Pamela S. Anderson, Dawson A. Brotemarkle, HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma and Craig Rainey, GPA MIDSTREAM ASSOCIATION, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae GPA Midstream Association.

John J. Griffin, Jr., L. Mark Walker, Harvey D. Ellis, CROWE & DUNLEVY, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association.

Mark D. Christiansen, McAFEE & TAFT, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae Oklahoma Oil & Gas Association.

Rex A. Sharp, REX A. SHARP, P.A., Prairie Village, KS, for Amicus Curiae Tony R. Whisenant.

Terry L. Stowers, Douglas E. Burns, BURNS & STOWERS, P.C., Norman, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae Coalition of Oklahoma Surface and Mineral Owners.

P. THOMAS THORNBRUGH, VICE-CHIEF JUDGE:

419 P.3d 1270

¶1 Defendants, Hancock Exploration LLC; Yale Oil Association, Inc., Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Cimarex Energy Co., and Cimarex Energy Co. of Colorado, appeal from the district court's entry of a declaratory judgment, following a bench trial on remand, in favor of Plaintiffs, Charles Pummill, Mark Parrish, and Chris Parrish, Jr. The trial court rejected Defendants' claim that they were allowed to proportionately charge certain expenses against Plaintiffs' royalty payments.

¶2 The question of consequence on appeal involves Defendants' challenge to the trial court's determination of when the natural gas at issue here became a "marketable product." Finding that the trial court's decision of this fact-intensive issue is supported by competent evidence and is in accord with law, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶3 This is the second time this matter has been before the Court of Civil Appeals. In the first appeal, Case No. 111,096, the Supreme Court vacated an opinion by COCA's Division I, and affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's summary judgment in Plaintiffs' favor. After finding that disputed fact issues remained undetermined, the Court remanded the case for trial. See Pummill v. Hancock Exploration LLC , 2014 OK 97, 341 P.3d 69 (corrected order) (" Pummill I " ).

¶4 The record reflects that Plaintiffs, Charles Pummill, Chris Parrish, Jr., and Mark Parrish (collectively, Lessors or Plaintiffs), are descendants of the original mineral interest owners/lessors of two oil and gas leases on 160 acres in the SE/4 of Section 32, Township 9 North, Range 8 West, in Grady County (the property). The property now is part of a 640-acre, drilling and spacing unit from which the Parrish-Novotny No. 1-32 Well (the 1-32 well), has produced natural gas since 1985. Plaintiffs' interests derive from leases entered into in 1966 between the original lessors, Ethel Marie Pummill and Mabel Lee Parrish, and Jules Bloch. The women each retained royalty interests in production. The Parrish lease contains a "gross proceeds" royalty clause, while the Pummill lease contains a "market price at the well" clause.1 Neither party to this litigation contends the language difference in the royalty clauses makes a difference when determining the point at which gas produced under the leases is a "marketable product."

¶5 The original lessee, Jules Bloch, assigned leasehold interests that ultimately were acquired by Defendants Hancock, Yale, and Chevron, as well as by Bloch's own company, Bloch Petroleum, LLC, which originally was named as a defendant in this case.2

419 P.3d 1271

Each of these companies is a current lessee and a non-operating working interest owner in the 1-32 well.

¶6 Defendant Cimarex Energy Co. of Colorado has been the operator of the 1-32 well since 1999.3 Cimarex Colorado is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Cimarex Energy Co. (collectively, Cimarex). Cimarex does not own an interest in the 1-32 well, but other wholly-owned subsidiaries of Cimarex Energy own net revenue interests totaling approximately 40%. Since June 2005, Cimarex has marketed production from the 1-32 well and also has calculated and distributed royalty payments to royalty owners, including Plaintiffs.

¶7 Plaintiffs filed this action in October 2011, claiming Defendants had improperly interpreted the leases so as to negate the implied covenant to market gas. They claimed Defendants had refused to bear all of the costs necessary to create a marketable product, and had underpaid Plaintiffs by improperly charging certain expenses against Plaintiffs' royalty interests.

¶8 Defendants denied Plaintiffs' claims and asserted various affirmative defenses. Cimarex also counterclaimed, disputing Plaintiffs' interpretation of "marketability" and arguing that if the court found the lease provisions did not negate an implied covenant to market, then it should enter judgment declaring that gas from the 1-32 is "marketable at the custody transfer meter" located near the well. The custody transfer meter connects to a pipeline/gathering system owned by a group of entities collectively referred to by the parties as "Enogex/Enable" or "Enogex."4 At all times relevant here, Enogex/Enable has gathered and transported the 1-32 gas to its off-lease processing plants, where it extracts natural gas liquids (NGLs) and delivers residue gas for sale into high pressure intra- or interstate pipelines. Cimarex specifically requested a declaration that it could proportionately charge Plaintiffs for processing costs incurred at the Enogex/Enable plants, as well as a determination that it could charge "any costs incurred for gas production" from the 1-32 well as long as "the other requisites for charging such costs to royalty owners" have been met under Mittelstaedt v. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc. , 1998 OK 7, 954 P.2d 1203.5

¶9 Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. As described in Pummill I , the trial court granted Plaintiffs' request and entered a lengthy judgment declaring that (1) neither the "gross proceeds" nor "market price at the well" lease language abrogated the "implied covenant to market" inherent in each lease, and, consequently, gas royalty payments under each lease were "free of all costs to create a marketable product"; (2) Defendants' use of a "percentage of proceeds" (POP) or "percent of index" (POI) form of gas purchase contract or service agreement with third parties instead of a "cash fee gathering agreement," did not change the amount of royalty owed under the leases; and (3) Defendants owed Plaintiffs royalty on gas from the 1-32 well "used off the lease or in the manufacture of products at the gas plant per the terms of the leases." A fourth issue, concerning interest owed by Defendants, was not disputed, and also was included in the court's judgment.

¶10 Defendants appealed. In June 2014, COCA Division I, finding the trial court's order adequately explained its decision, unanimously affirmed pursuant to

419 P.3d 1272

Okla.Sup.Ct.R. 1.202(d). See Case No. 111,096 (opinion issued June 27, 2014). Defendants sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted. It thereafter vacated COCA's opinion, affirmed the trial court's judgment as to statutory interest, reversed its judgment as to the three other issues, and remanded, stating:

The appellants [Defendants] identified four issues in their appeal of the judgment of the district court: Issue 1. The express language of their leases does not abrogate or negate the implied covenant to market in any way; Issue 2. The current or future use of a POP, POI or any other form of contract, instead of a fee based agreement with Enogex, does not change the amount of royalties due under the leases; Issue 3. Appellants are entitled to receive royalties on gas used off the lease or in the manufacture of products at the gas plant; and Issue 4. Appellants owe interest on royalties not timely paid without prior demand from the royalty owners.

The briefs filed and the oral argument held before this Court on November 5, 2014, reveal that facts which could affect the resolution of the district court Issues I through III need to be addressed before the fact-finder, the district court. The parties at the oral argument affirmed that Issue IV was not contested.

Accordingly, certiorari is granted. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is vacated. The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded with instructions to hear and decide the disputed fact issues.
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Naylor Farms, Inc. v. Chaparral Energy, LLC, 17-6146
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • May 3, 2019
    ...suggesting marketability always turns, at least in part, on individual characteristics of gas at issue); Pummill v. Hancock Expl. LLC , 419 P.3d 1268, 1278 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018) (indicating that in some cases, it may be possible to answer marketability question based on characteristics of ......
  • Hitch Enters., Inc. v. Oxy USA Inc., Case No. 18-1030-EFM-KGG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • July 16, 2019
    ...this is referred to as the Implied Duty of Marketability. 36. Id. at 783-84. 37. Id at 787 (analyzing Pummill v. Hancock Expl. LLC, 419 P.3d 1268, 1278 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018)). 38. Id. at 794-95. 39. 296 Kan. 336, 292 P.3d 289 (2013). 40. Id. at 307. 41. Sternberger, 894 P.2d at 792, 800. 4......
  • Reirdon v. Cimarex Energy Co., Case No. CIV-16-445-SPS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Eastern District of Oklahoma
    • March 21, 2019
    ...the Defendants in this case) did not challenge this finding. Pummill, et al. v. Hancock Exploration, et al., 2018 OK CIV APP 48, ¶ 46, 419 P.3d 1268, 1280, cert. denied Case No. 114703 (May 21, 2018). See also Chieftain Royalty Co., et el. V. Apache Corp., Case No. CJ-2012-81, p. 14 (Dist. ......
  • Reirdon v. Cimarex Energy Co., Case No. CIV-16-445-SPS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Eastern District of Oklahoma
    • March 21, 2019
    ...the Defendants in this case) did not challenge this finding. Pummill, et al. v. Hancock Exploration, et al., 2018 OK CIV APP 48, ¶ 46, 419 P.3d 1268, 1280, cert. denied Case No. 114703 (May 21, 2018). Moreover, the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma has used the marketable ......
  • 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