Opinion ID: 2613135
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: certified questions of state law

Text: The federal court has posed the following questions of state law: 1(a) Can the drilling of and production from a unit well in a 640-acre drilling and spacing unit created by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission give rise to and constitute adverse possession of a severed mineral interest in the oil and gas underlying a 40-acre tract within the unit, or of the leasehold interest therein, under the following conditions: (i) the unit well is 970 feet from, but is not located on the 40-acre tract; (ii) in drilling the unit well and producing the oil and gas therefrom, the adverse claimants (the lessor of the minerals and her lessee) acted under color of title and claim of right to the oil and gas underlying the 40-acre tract; (iii) the record owner of the oil and gas underlying the 40-acre tract was not aware that she owned any interest in the oil and gas underlying that tract and, as the owner of an oil and gas interest in a different tract within the same unit, executed a Division Order reflecting that the adverse claimants owned the oil and gas underlying the 40-acre tract; and (iv) for over 25 years the adverse claimants received all payments attributable to production from the 40-acre tract and bore all expenses of drilling and production attributable to that tract? (b) If the answer to question 1(a) is negative, then can the possession of the oil and gas interests in the tract by the adversely claiming lessor, and the possession of that mineral leasehold by the oil and gas lessee, from 1970 through 1988, give rise to adverse possession of the entire oil and gas interest underlying the 40-acre tract, or of the leasehold interest therein against the record owner and co-tenant, under the following conditions: (i) the adversely claiming lessor obtained a deed conveying color of title to the oil and gas underlying the 40-acre tract in 1942; (ii) the 40-acre tract was included within a 640-acre drilling and spacing unit created by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission in 1961; (iii) the adversely claiming lessee drilled and completed a unit well on a different tract in the unit in 1962, acting under color of title and claim of right to all of the oil and gas underlying the 40-acre tract; (iv) the adversely claiming lessor and the other record owner each inherited an undivided one-half (1/2) interest in the oil and gas underlying the 40-acre tract in 1970, making them co-tenants; and (v) from 1970 through 1988 the record owner and co-tenant was not aware that she owned a one-half (1/2) interest in the oil and gas underlying the 40-acre tract, and the adversely claiming lessor believed she owned all of the oil and gas underlying the 40-acre tract and received all the royalty payments attributable to all oil and gas production from the 40-acre tract, under claim of right thereto, and the adversely claiming lessee received all production proceeds, and bore all operating costs, attributable to the full working interest in the 40-acre tract? (c) Under the stipulated and undisputed facts in this case, has (i) the adversely claiming lessor and/or (ii) the adversely claiming lessee, fulfilled the requirements for adverse possession of the oil and gas underlying the 40-acre tract in issue? (d) If the answer to question 1(c) is affirmative, does the prescriptive title extend to all oil and gas underlying the 40-acre tract in issue, or just to the oil and gas within the formations being drained by the unit well? (e) If the answer to questions 1(a), 1(b) or 1(c) is negative, is a forced pooling action before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission the only means for adjudicating the rights and equities of ownership in the spacing unit and the unit well? 2. If the answer to questions 1(a), 1(b) or 1(c) is affirmative, under Oklahoma law must co-tenants know of their status as co-tenants before an ouster of one cotenant by the other can occur? 3. Does the operator of a well have a fiduciary relationship with other working interest owners in the unit that would preclude the operator from establishing title by prescription to a disputed mineral interest or any portion thereof? 4. What effect does a judgment quieting title to a mineral interest have upon heirs who were known, but were not named as defendants, although the decedent and his unknown heirs were named as defendants? 5. Is the champerty statute, found at Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 548, applicable to conveyances of oil and gas rights?