Opinion ID: 1958207
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Prescription Issue

Text: Plaintiff's success on the scope of the reservation issue is short-lived, for we now reverse our earlier position on the prescription issue and find that the plaintiff's right to search for and capture lignite had prescribed for ten years' nonuse notwithstanding the production of oil and gas. By way of review, we note that the court of appeal based its finding on the case of GMB Gas Corp. v. Koch, 340 So.2d 638 (2nd Cir. 1976), which directed that the provisions of the Mineral Code should be followed on pre-code issues which have not been clearly resolved by the jurisprudence. Believing the matter had not been clearly resolved, they applied R.S. 31:40, which provides, An interruption of prescription applies to all types of minerals covered by the act creating the servitude and to all modes of its use. Clearly, under this provision, the production of oil and gas would suffice to interrupt prescription for the strip-mining of lignite. We were correct in not applying R.S. 31:40 retroactively as did the court of appeal, for the prior law was not the same [1] and since the effective date of the Mineral Code was January 1, 1975, by that time, whatever rights plaintiff had were vested. As the Mineral Code itself provides: The provisions of this article shall apply to all mineral rights, including those existing on the effective date hereof; but no provision may apply to divest already vested rights, or to impair the obligation of contracts. R.S. 31:214. Concerning the court of appeal's application of the logic as expressed in GMB Gas Corp., supra, we respond by quoting the following excerpt from 38 La.L.Rev. 378 (1978): An inquiry into the meaning of the old law should be guided by article 1 of the Civil Code, which states `Law is a solemn expression of the legislative will.' Therefore, in seeking to ascertain whether new law has destroyed rights under old law, courts must do more than merely examine whether there is a four-square case in point. Rights long established under the Civil Code or legislation are often so clearly vested that there is no need for controversy or litigation. Legislation, as much as any case, can vest rights. Therefore, future decisions ought to analyze Civil Code regimes antedating the Mineral Code, irrespective of jurisprudence or the absence thereof. Thus, as we did in our original opinion, we look to the pertinent articles of the Civil Code that were in effect when the servitude was made in 1956, and when the right to strip-mine for lignite under said servitude prescribed in 1966. Those articles are C.C. art. 796 and art. 798. [2] Article 796. The mode of servitude is subject to prescription as well as the servitude itself, and in the same manner. By mode of servitude, in this case, is understood the manner of using the servitude as is prescribed in the title.       Article 798. If, on the contrary, the owner has enjoyed a right less extensive than is given him by his title, the servitude, whatever be its nature, is reduced to that which is preserved by possession during the time necessary to establish prescription. In our original opinion while addressing the prescription issue, we were incorrect in holding that these articles were inapplicable. We held that the mineral servitude here at issue is a discontinuous servitude which is unlimited by title as to its exercise, whereas Articles 796-799 are applicable only to discontinuous servitudes when the title creating same establishes limitations as to the mode of exercise. We then concluded that the preferred interpretation of the law as it was before passage of the Mineral Code was that oil and gas production would interrupt prescription as to the digging of solid minerals. We now find this conclusion was erroneous. In previous cases, this Court and our lower courts have used these articles to decide mineral right controversies. As we said in Trunkline Gas Co., et al. v. Steen, et al, 249 La. 520, 187 So.2d 720 (1966): In the evolution of the mineral law in the State, it was recognized that the sale or reservation of a mineral right, having been classed as a servitude, was subject to the applicable articles of the Civil Code in the resolution of conflicting claims; and in deciding the early and landmark case of Ohio Oil Co. v. Ferguson [213 La. 183, 34 So.2d 746], supra, the precedent upon which succeeding decisions, including Childs v. Washington [229 La. 869, 87 So.2d 111], supra, and Jumonville Pipe and Machinery Co. v. Federal Land Bank [230 La. 41, 87 So.2d 721], supra, were predicated, we concluded the articles of the Civil Code in Title IV, entitled Of Predial Servitudes or Servitudes of Land, whenever applicable were controlling. The landmark case referred to, Ohio Oil Co. v. Ferguson, et al, 213 La. 183, 34 So.2d 746 (1946) used the Civil Code in determining a mineral owner's rights. There it was found that the servitude owner had enjoyed a right less extensive than that which was given him by his title and, hence, the servitude was reduced to that which was preserved by his use or possession during the time necessary to establish prescription. The case cited articles 798 and 803. In the present case, we have a similar situation. The defendant had the right by title to all minerals (including lignite); however, he only enjoyed that right to produce oil and gas. Hence, his mineral servitude should be reduced to oil and gas. Admittedly, there are no cases exactly on point with the issue at hand. However, prior jurisprudence concerning the preservation of servitudes by use provides us with the simple proposition that if you don't use it, you lose it, and if you don't use it well enough, you lose it. While this is probably an oversimplification of the issue, the following cases reflect this position when dealing with mineral servitude cases. Louisiana Petroleum Co. v. Broussard, et al, 172 La. 613, 135 So. 1 (1935) is an example of not exercising the servitude in the proper manner so as to interrupt prescription. The servitude in question gave unto the grantees a right to search for oil and gas. The grantees, although exploiting for oil and gas, stopped or abandoned their effort at a depth at which there was no reasonable hope of discovering minerals in paying quantities. In concluding that the grantees had lost their servitude, the court held: To use a servitude, so as to interrupt prescription, is to use it in the manner contemplated by the grant or reservation. This ruling finds support in articles 796 to 800, inclusive of the Civil Code, touching the mode of use of servitudes and in connection therewith, prescription. The servitude, in this instance, was granted for the purpose of exploring for oil, gas, and other minerals, and converting them to possession, if they were discovered, and the servitude existed for that purpose. Reference must therefore be made to the object of the grantnot for the purpose of determining whether there has been a breach of any obligation that might exist to develop, but to determine whether there has been such use as to interrupt prescription. In Goldsmith v. McCoy, et al, 190 La. 320, 182 So. 519 (1938), the court followed Broussard, supra, and held that a geophysical exploration for the purpose of determining by scientific methods the indication of minerals underlying the surface was not use of the servitude in the manner contemplated by the grant thereof and, accordingly, such activity did not interrupt prescription. Analogous to this situation are the cases involving pipelines and the prescription of the right to lay them more than ten years after the construction of the first line. In the expropriation case of Columbia Gulf Transmission Co. v. Fontenot, 187 So.2d 455 (3rd Cir. 1966), that court held the transmission company's failure to construct any additional lines during a ten year period constituted a use less extensive than that given it by its title, and consequently, the transmission company lost by prescription any rights it had under the agreements to construct additional lines. The court cited articles 796 and 798. Using this logic in Dickerson v. R.J.M. Pipeliners, Inc., et al., 331 So.2d 501 (2nd Cir. 1976), another circuit found the defendants had not used their right to lay additional gas transmission lines on plaintiff's property; thus, their right had prescribed. Both cases are examples of the use of C.C. arts. 796 and 798 and our simplification of their reading that if you don't use the servitude you lose it. Such was the situation with our immediate case. These cases are but examples of the use of the Civil Code articles in dealing with mineral servitudes and like situations regarding their prescription for non-use. We now find that, since the right to explore and capture lignite was not used, the defendant's mineral servitude to strip-mine for lignite expired in 1966. Since that time, the plaintiff, as landowner, has been in possession of this prescribed right. We base this conclusion on the fact that absolutely no mode of use even vaguely resembling strip-mining was performed by the defendants during their ten year prescriptive period. Since the mode of servitude is subject to prescription as well as the servitude itself (art. 796), we find the right to strip-mine for lignite has prescribed. Furthermore, since the defendants enjoyed the right by title to all mineral rights and only drilled for oil and gas, their servitude is reduced to that which they preserved (art. 798). For the above reasons, the decisions of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal and this Court on original hearing are reversed. Plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment limiting defendant's servitude to the right to explore for and exploit oil, gas and kindred minerals is granted. The right to explore for and strip-mine for the solid mineral lignite is granted to the plaintiff. All costs of these proceedings are to be paid by the defendants. REVERSED. DIXON, C.J., concurs with reasons. CALOGERO, J., dissents. The opinion correctly resolves the all mineral rights issue but incorrectly decides the prescription issue. I subscribe to the opinion on the original hearing. DENNIS, J., concurs with reasons. LEMMON, J., concurs and will assign reasons. WATSON, J., dissents, being of the view that the original opinion was correct.