Originally published by Charles Sartain.
We have a new format. And we’re still gluten free!
Co-author Alexandria Twiss
In BP America v. Laddex, Ltd. the Texas Supreme Court affirmed that in a lease termination case the trial court cannot limit the jury’s consideration of production in paying quantities to an arbitrary time period. The court also applied the Rule Against Perpetuities.
Production in paying quantities
See this entry for our discussion of the court of appeals’ ruling.
In March 2007 the lessors under the BP lease entered into a top-lease with Laddex covering the same property as the BP lease. Laddex sued, alleging that the BP lease had terminated for failure to produce in paying quantities in 2005 and 2006. A jury found that the BP lease had terminated for failing to produce in paying quantities. BP appealed.
The trial court incorrectly charged the jury on production in paying quantities by limiting the inquiry to a specific 15-month period in which production slowed. The controlling issue was whether the well failed to produce over a reasonable period of time determined by the jury, not a specific period chosen by the court.
The Rule Against Perpetuities
Despite the boredom that may result, you need to know about the Rule. BP argued that the top-lease on which Laddex’s standing depended was void as a perpetuity.
The Rule: “No interest is valid unless it must vest, if at all, within twenty-one years after the death of some life or lives in being at the time of the conveyance.”
The BP bottom-lease was a conveyance of the mineral estate (less portions expressly reserved, such as royalty) as a determinable fee. A it possibility of reverter is the interest left in a grantor after the grant of a fee simple determinable. The possibility of reverter is presently vested at the time the lease is executed.
A top-lease conveyance on expiration of a bottom-lease, without more, generally violates the Rule. However, the court looked to Laddex’s lease. Its primary term commenced on the date that either (1) releases of the BP lease executed by all owners of record are filed in the real property records, or (2) a final judgment terminating the BP lease.
The Laddex lease further stated that is “is intended to and does include and vest in Lessee any and all remainder and reversionary interest and after-acquired title of Lessor in the Leased Premises upon expiration of any prior oil, gas or mineral lease . . . .” The Court concluded that a plausible interpretation of this language was that the Laddex lease is a present “partial alienation” of the lessors’ possibility of reverter under the BP lease, to the extent that what Laddex has acquired “is capable of ripening into a fee simple determinable interest upon expiration of the [BP] lease.” BP’s interpretation was also plausible, but where an instrument is equally open to two constructions, the one will be accepted which renders it valid rather than void.
from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2nXRJ2O
via Abogado Aly Website