This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals recently interpreted two reservations of non-participating royaltyinterests (NPRIs) involving double fractions, holding that they reserved fixed, rather than floating, royalties. Ohio, LLC , 2023-Ohio-4749.
Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals recently held that an “anti-washout” provision found in multiple assignments of overriding royaltyinterests covering leases that subsequently expired was not binding on the original lessee’s assignees, which had taken new leases to those same lands, as there was no privity of contract.
2023), in which it held that lessees owed royalties in excess of their gross proceeds, specifically “adding back” costs incurred by third-party buyers that were enumerated in the sales contract and subtracted from the sales price. The lessees owned working interests in certain oil and gas leases that were executed in 2007. 2d 118 (Tex.
Whether a royalty granted or reserved in a deed is a “fixed” or “floating” royalty has resulted in a lot of litigation in Texas. The Plaintiff sold land to a third party and reserved a 1/8 royalty nonparticipating royaltyinterest (fixed royalty language). ConocoPhillips Co.,
Investing in oil and gas royalties involves purchasing the rights to receive a portion of the revenue generated from the production and sale of oil and gas from a particular property or lease. Passive Income : Oil and gas royalties can provide investors with a source of passive income.
Travis Lattner, Jr., “a non-participating royalty of one-fourth (1/4th) of the landowner’s usual one-eighth (1/8th) royalty on oil and gas produced and saved from said land[.]” By way of background, in 1955 J.D. and Elva Arthur conveyed to W. By way of background, in 1955 J.D. and Elva Arthur conveyed to W.
While 30:10 was amended during the 2022 legislative session, the amendment preserved the limited obligation of remitting the royalty and overriding royalty burdens to the nonparticipating owner for the benefit of the royalty and overriding royalty owners.
In the 1920s—the time the deed at issue was executed—lessors commonly reserved a one-eighth royaltyinterest when they executed oil and gas leases. In addition to the estate misconception theory, the Court analyzed the “legacy of the one-eighth royalty.” Dils Co. , 2d 904 (Tex.
James Boldrick is an assignee of an overriding royaltyinterest in property subleased to BTA. BTA, the assignor and creator of Boldrick’s interest, elected non-consent status regarding the well at issue, proposed and drilled by Chevron. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of BTA and Boldrick appealed.
12/19/07), the court addressed the payment of royalties and penalties under Mineral Code article 212.23(c) In exchange, the defendant agreed to transfer an overriding royaltyinterest in the subject prospect to the plaintiff in the event defendant acquired an interest in the prospect. In CLK Company, L.L.C. 31:212.21).
This case presents two critical questions: Who owns subsurface caverns created by salt mining operations, and How should in-kind royalties be calculated for salt production? ” The Fifth Circuit, applying Texas law in Dunn-McCampbell RoyaltyInterest, Inc. Part II: The Royalty Calculation Dispute A.
—Tyler 5/5/2010), the Tyler Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the termination of an oil and gas lease for failure to pay shut-in royalty payments to the proper party. Van Hovenberg (“Van Hovenberg”) conveyed by royalty deed to O.B. In 1976, Karin H. In 1976, Karin H.
the Louisiana Second Circuit upheld a trial court’s ruling that the holder of a security interest in mineral leases was solidarily liable for damages under the Louisiana Mineral Code stemming from its mineral lessees/mortgagors’ actions. [1] in unpaid royalties and an additional double damages penalty of $484,058.52 4] $242,029.26
Dunn-McCampbell RoyaltyInterest Inc. Nat’l Park Serv. , 09-40187 (5th Cir. The case involved land in the Padre Island National Park, created in 1963. The conflict arose between the National Park Service (“Service”), owner of surface estates, and Plaintiffs who were owners of mineral estates.
Factual and Procedural Background TRO-X and Eagle entered into an agreement to buy and sell certain leases, sharing the cash and mineral interest proceeds derived from such sales (the “Agreement”). When the suit went to trial, the leases subject to the Chesapeake sale had not generated any royalty income.
TRO-X and Eagle entered into an agreement to buy and sell certain leases, sharing the cash and mineral interest proceeds derived from such sales (the “Agreement”). When the suit went to trial, the leases subject to the Chesapeake sale had not generated any royalty income. The jury awarded TRO-X $7,680,000 in damages.
Recently, when there was talk about Houston-based ATP Oil and Gas’ (ATP) legal problems, it was inevitably about its bankruptcy and its effort to bring the overriding royaltyinterests it had conveyed back into the bankrupt estate as debt instruments.
Financial Consequences The financial consequences of issuing straight and convertible debt, convertible and non-convertible equity, and equity kickers is complicated and may require the assistance of bankers, accountants and lawyers to determine which technique is the most appropriate for the circumstances.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content