.
Karli v. Wilson instructs mineral/royalty traders and their scriveners on a surefire way to create title chaos out of what could have been an uncomplicated land transaction. In 1950 the Wilson siblings and spouses executed a warranty deed to
For an example of a case gone wrong in so many ways, look no further than Evans Resources LP et al v. Diamondback E & P.
The facts
There were three agreements between several Evans entities and Diamondback for Evans‘
Co-author Taylor Hall
In Marathon Oil Co. v. Mercuria Energy America, LLC, the Texas Business Court (11th Division) considered a North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) contract to buy and sell natural gas. With three opinions to discuss, this post
White Star Energy Inc. v. Ridgefield Permian Minerals, LLC is yet another title dispute reiterating that buying minerals that were once the subject of a tax suit foreclosure is fraught with uncertainty regardless of who you buy from.
Anne Mounts
Co-author Gunner West
In Byrne Oil Co. v. Walraven, a court of appeals held that a surface owner/lessor cannot bury his lessee’s pipelines and recover costs when adequate time exists to pursue judicial remedies, even after years of operator
Lula Eades once owned minerals in Loving County, Texas. In 2000, in a single lawsuit the Wink-Loving ISD and Loving County foreclosed on the mineral and royalty interests of more than 80 owners, including Lula. In Ridgefield Permian Minerals et
Co-author Gunner West
Once again, a Texas court has barred a lawsuit because the plaintiff waited too long to file. And once again, perhaps, the suit was a Hail Mary after alternatives failed.
Co-author Gunner West
Ambiguity is handy for office-seekers intending to walk back “promises” they later say they really didn’t make. It doesn’t work so well for the stability of land titles. In Thagard Mineral Partnership, LP v. Cass v. RIM
You would think that a Master Service Contract concerning boats and oilfield operations in the Gulf of Mexico would be governed by federal maritime law. In some situations you would be mistaken, says Offshore Oil Services, Inc. v. Island Operating
Some things aren’t. In keeping with its familiar journalistic standards, the New York Times presents fact-free opinion in a place (page 1, top of the fold) usually reserved for news, this time in its July 26-27 International Edition. Headline: “Ignoring
