Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a dispute between Anne Carl and related parties (the royalty holders) and Hilcorp Energy Company (the producer) over the calculation of royalties from a mineral lease. The lease stipulates that royalties are to be calculated based on the market value of the minerals "at the well," meaning before any post-production efforts have increased their value. However, the minerals are often not sold until after these efforts have taken place, resulting in a higher sale price. To account for this disparity, the producer deducted the proportionate share of post-production costs from the royalty payment, a method known as the "workback method." The royalty holders were dissatisfied with this reduced payment and sued, arguing that the lease required payment of a royalty on all gas produced from the well.The case was initially heard in a federal district court, which sided with the producer. The court found that the lease did indeed convey an "at-the-well" royalty, meaning the royalty holders were obligated to share proportionately in the post-production costs. The court also found no fault with the producer's method of accounting for these costs, which involved using some of the gas produced from the well to power post-production activities conducted off the lease. The value of this gas was considered a post-production cost and was therefore deducted from the total volume of gas used to calculate the royalty.The case was then certified to the Supreme Court of Texas, which affirmed the lower court's decision. The court agreed with the producer's interpretation of the lease and found that the royalty holders, as holders of an "at-the-well" royalty, were indeed obligated to bear their usual share of post-production costs. The court also found that the producer's method of accounting for these costs was permissible. The court concluded that the royalty holders were not shortchanged and that the producer's calculation was one acceptable way to convert the downstream sales price into an at-the-well market value on which to pay the royalty, as required by the lease. View "CARL v. HILCORP ENERGY COMPANY" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the interpretation of an assignment of mineral rights. In 1987, Shell Western E&P, Inc. sold a large bundle of Texas oil-and-gas properties to the predecessor of Citation 2002 Investment LLC. The assignment included an exhibit that listed the properties being transferred, some of which included depth specifications. In 1997, Shell purported to assign all its interests in the same leases to Occidental Permian’s predecessor. Occidental claimed that Shell had reserved to itself interests beyond the depth specifications of the 1987 assignment. Citation, however, claimed that it received the entirety of Shell’s leasehold interests in the 1987 assignment.The trial court granted Occidental’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the depth-specified tracts listed in the exhibit reserved to Shell the mineral-estate depths beyond the notations. Citation appealed, and the court of appeals reversed, holding that the 1987 assignment unambiguously conveyed the entirety of Shell’s interests in the leasehold estates without reserving portions of those interests to Shell.The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' decision. The court held that the disputed assignment unambiguously conveyed all right, title, and interest that Shell owned in the leasehold estates listed in the exhibit, without reserving portions of those interests to itself through further notations about specific tracts within those estates. The court reasoned that the assignment's broad granting language, coupled with the absence of explicit reservation language, indicated that the entirety of the leasehold interests were conveyed. The court also noted that the depth specifications in the exhibit served a concrete purpose of providing notice of depth-specific third-party interests that continue after the leasehold estates are assigned. View "OCCIDENTAL PERMIAN, LTD. v. CITATION 2002 INVESTMENT LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over oil and gas interests between Spottie, Inc., a Nevada corporation, and several other Nevada corporations and a limited liability company. Spottie alleged that the defendants had wrongfully claimed title to these interests, which were once owned by Edward Davis, who had formed Spottie as a holding company. The defendants countered that they had entered into an agreement with Davis to acquire these interests, and that Davis and Spottie had transferred the disputed interests to one of the defendants via an assignment in 2016.The district court dismissed several of Spottie's claims, leaving only a quiet title claim and a claim for unjust enrichment. After a three-day bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the assignment from Davis and Spottie to one of the defendants was valid. The court also found that Spottie had erroneously received revenue from the disputed interests and awarded damages to the defendants.Spottie appealed the decision, arguing that the district court had erred in its ownership determination, its rejection of Spottie's laches defense, its binding of a non-party to the judgment, and its award of attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed in part, concluding that the district court did not err in its ownership determination and its award of attorney fees. However, it reversed in part, finding that the court had erred in awarding costs for non-legal expenses. The case was remanded for the court to recalculate its cost award and to consider the defendants' request for additional attorney fees and legal costs. View "SPOTTIE v. BAIUL-FARINA" on Justia Law

The case originated as a class action dispute about the underpayment of oil and gas royalties due on wells in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Chieftain Royalty Company, sued SM Energy Company, the operator of the wells, under various tort theories, including fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. In 2015, the claims were settled for approximately $52 million. Following the settlement, Chieftain's counsel moved for attorneys’ fees, and Chieftain sought an incentive award for its CEO, Robert Abernathy. Two class members objected to the awards and appealed. The court affirmed the settlement but reversed the attorneys’ fees and incentive awards, remanding to the district court for further proceedings.On remand, the district court re-awarded the fees and incentive award. The class did not receive notice of the 2018 attorneys’ fees motion as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h)(1), so the court vacated the district court order awarding attorneys’ fees and remanded with instructions to direct class-wide notice of the 2018 attorneys’ fees motion and to re-open the period for objections. The court did not reach the merits of the appellate challenge to the re-awarded attorneys’ fees. The court affirmed the district court’s incentive award to Mr. Abernathy. View "Chieftain Royalty Company v. SM Energy Company" on Justia Law

Whitetail Wave LLC, a Montana Limited Liability Company, sued XTO Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Board of University and School Lands of the State of North Dakota, the State of North Dakota, and the Department of Water Resources and its Director. Whitetail Wave claimed ownership of certain property in McKenzie County, North Dakota, and alleged that XTO Energy had breached their lease agreement by failing to make required royalty payments. Whitetail Wave also claimed that the State's assertion of an interest in the mineral interests associated with the property constituted an unconstitutional taking without just compensation.The District Court of McKenzie County granted summary judgment in favor of the State and XTO Energy. The court concluded that the State owned certain mineral interests within the ordinary high watermark as defined by North Dakota law. The court also found that XTO Energy was within the safe harbor provision provided by North Dakota law and did not breach the parties’ lease agreement when it withheld the royalty payments. The court awarded XTO Energy recovery of its attorney’s fees.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the judgment of the district court. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not err in dismissing Whitetail Wave's claim of an unconstitutional taking against the State, as the State's actions were limited to a title dispute. The Supreme Court also found that the district court did not err in dismissing Whitetail Wave's claim against XTO Energy for the non-payment of royalties, as XTO Energy fell within the safe harbor provision of North Dakota law. Finally, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not err in awarding XTO Energy a recovery of its attorney’s fees as the prevailing party. View "Whitetail Wave v. XTO Energy" on Justia Law

In the case of Maryann Jones v. Solgen Construction, LLC and GoodLeap, LLC, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court's decision not to compel arbitration. The case concerned a business relationship involving the installation of home solar panels. The appellants, Solgen Construction and GoodLeap, had appealed the trial court's denial of their separate motions to compel arbitration, arguing that the court had erred in several ways, including by concluding that no valid agreement to arbitrate existed.Jones, the respondent, had filed a lawsuit alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligence, and violations of various consumer protection laws. She contended that she had been misled into believing she was signing up for a free government program to lower her energy costs, not entering into a 25-year loan agreement for solar panels. The appellants argued that Jones had signed contracts containing arbitration clauses, but the court found that the appellants had failed to meet their burden of demonstrating the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The court also held that the contract was unenforceable due to being unconscionable.The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, rejecting the appellants' arguments that an evidentiary hearing should have been held and that the court had erred in its interpretation of the evidence and the law. It found that the trial court had not abused its discretion and that its finding that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proof was not erroneous as a matter of law. View "Jones v. Solgen Construction" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Fonda Jo Powell and Mary T. Henke, as co-personal representatives of the Estate of June A. Slagle, alongside Helen Verhasselt, the trustee of the June Slagle Family Mineral Trust, filed an appeal against Statoil Oil & Gas LP (now known as Equinor Energy LP). The plaintiffs appealed from a judgment of dismissal entered after the district court granted Statoil's motion for summary judgment, concluding that a dispute of title allowed Statoil to suspend royalty payments and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to statutory interest. The plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in concluding there was a title dispute, while Statoil argued that this action was barred by the statute of limitations.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the decision of the district court, concluding that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations and that the court erred in concluding that Statoil lawfully suspended royalty payments. The court determined that a ten-year statute of limitations applied to the claim for untimely payment of royalties under the oil and gas lease, as per N.D.C.C. § 28-01-15(2). Furthermore, the court concluded that, when a dispute is between the mineral developer and the mineral owner, notice of the dispute is required under N.D.C.C. § 47-16-39.4. As Statoil did not provide evidence that it had notified June Slagle of a title dispute, it was required to pay interest on the unpaid royalties at a rate of 18% per annum. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Powell v. Statoil Oil & Gas" on Justia Law

In the case under review, the plaintiff, Antonio Martinez, acting as executor of the estate of Naomi Gonzales, filed a lawsuit against Agway Energy Services, LLC, alleging breach of contract and violations of New York General Business Law. The case arose from a contract Gonzales had with Agway, an energy supply company, which provided her with a one-month promotional rate and subsequently a variable monthly rate. Gonzales maintained this contract for about two years. After canceling the agreement, she sued Agway, alleging that its monthly variable rate was consistently higher than that charged by the local utility and that Agway had breached its agreement by failing to charge competitive rates and by charging customers for the cost of an included service, EnergyGuard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that Agway had fulfilled the terms of the contract. The court held that the contract language allowed Agway to exercise its discretion to set a variable monthly rate based on several factors, including its costs, expenses, and margins, and that the company was entitled to include the cost of providing the EnergyGuard service in its monthly variable rate. Gonzales' argument that Agway had promised to provide competitive rates was found to be unsupported by the contract's language. The court, therefore, affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Agway. View "Martinez v. Agway Energy Services, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2016 Watchous Enterprises, LLC contracted with one of the five individual defendant companies, Pacific National Capital, paying it a $7,600 nonrefundable deposit to secure help finding a lender or a joint-venture partner. Pacific introduced Watchous to companies affiliated with Waterfall Mountain LLC (collectively referred to as "Waterfall"). Watchous and Waterfall eventually executed a letter of intent to enter into a joint venture to which Waterfall would contribute more than $80 million. As part of the arrangement, Watchous paid Waterfall a $175,000 refundable deposit. Waterfall said that it would fund the venture through proceeds of loans backed by billions of dollars in Venezuelan sovereign bonds in the name of Waterfall or its lender (RPB Company). But Waterfall never funded Watchous, and Watchous was never refunded the $175,000. Watchous then filed suit under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and common-law claims under Kansas law against Pacific and Waterfall as well as against the five Appellants sued individually. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Watchous on its fraud claims (leaving damages for the jury to decide), essentially on the ground that Appellants misrepresented and failed to disclose “the historic and contemporary facts about Waterfall’s dubious finances, loan defaults, and consistent lack of success in funding similar projects.” Watchous’s remaining claims proceeded to trial, where a jury found that Appellants engaged in a civil conspiracy to defraud Watchous, and had violated RICO. Appellants appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Watchous Enterprises v. Mournes, et al." on Justia Law

In this review of a decision of the Public Service Commission relating to rates charged by Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) for the provision of electric service, the Supreme Court held that the Commission had not supplied a basis for meaningful judicial review of its conclusion that the settlement agreement provided a reasonable resolution of the issues, established reasonable rates, and was in the public interest.The settlement agreement at issue was between FPL and seven parties that intervened in the matter and permitted FPL to increase its base rates and service charges. After hearing arguments in favor of and against the settlement agreement the Commission concluded that the agreement "provides a reasonable resolution of all issues raised, establishes rates that are fair, just, and reasonable, and is in the public interest." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that remand was required because the Commission failed to perform its duty to explain its reasoning. View "Floridians Against Increased Rates, Inc. v. Clark" on Justia Law