Opinion ID: 2534600
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Orange River

Text: Orange River argues that the unique facts and circumstances of this case do not require this Court to pronounce a new rule regarding whether concursus is always a reasonable response by a royalty payor to competing claims. Orange River asserts that there was never a true adverse claim to justify the suspension of royalties, and that the suspension of royalty payments was prefabricated. The adverse claim was only pretext for doing what Cimarex was required to do under its deal with the Mauboules. There was never a bona fide dispute as to Orange River's ownership of the royalty interests and right to payment. Orange River argues that it was entitled to rely on the prescription interruption clause in the Ereunao deeds to keep its interests alive, even if it was fraudulently inserted, because the deeds were recorded in the public records. The Mauboules took no action to pursue Ereunao, and there was no claim by the Mauboules of record. Further, the Mauboules have never asserted a claim for fraud, or made any claim that could be construed as competing or conflicting to the interests acquired by Orange River.