Court Opinion

ID: 9647225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:26:59.531414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:50.651740
License: Public Domain

David Newbern, Justice, dissenting. The appellant describes herself as an oil well operator who is very experienced in the oil business. She testified she had $400 per acre invested in the two acres which are the subject of this action. She acknowledged she is asking the appellee to spend over $10,000 to repair the two acres despite the payment of $ 1,700 to her predecessor in title for damages to the land in question. Her position, apparently accepted by the appellee, is that she is not bound by the release given by her predecessor because she was unaware of it when she purchased the land. The majority opinion cites no case holding that a lease of mineral rights carries an implied obligation of the lessee to restore the leasehold, as nearly as practicable, to the condition it was in before drilling. There may be one such case. In Smith v. Schuster, 66 So. 2d 430 (La. App. 1953), the court found such a duty. The basis of the duty was not discussed, and no authority for it was cited. That case was overruled by implication in Rohner v. Austral Oil Exploration Co., 104 So. 2d 253 (La. App. 1958). In the latter case, the mineral lease expressly required the lessee to pay for damages to crops and timber. The court allowed damages for lost corn and watermelons but refused to go further, stating there was no duty beyond the duty not to be negligent in the use of the land. More recently the Louisiana Court of Appeals has found an implied duty to restore the surface, but it has been based on the Louisiana Mineral Code rather than the lease between the parties. See Broussard v. Waterbury, 346 So. 2d 1342 (La. App. 1977). I agree with the scholarly articles cited in the majority opinion that there has been a trend to enact legislation imposing the duty to restore upon mineral lessees. Montana (Mont. Code Ann. § 82-10-501 to § 82-10-511 (1983); Illinois (111. Rev. Stat. Ch. 1001/2 § 26 (1983); Kansas (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 55-132(a) (1983); Oklahoma (Okla. Stats. Ann. tit. 52 § 318.2 to § 318.9 (WestSupp. 1984-85); and South Dakota (S.D. Cent. Code § 38-11.1-01 to § 38-11.1-10 (1980 and Supp. 1983) have such statutes. Before the enactment of its statute, Oklahoma allowed the lessor to recover under a nuisance theory, Tenneco Oil Co. v. Allen, 515 P.2d 1391 (Okla. 1973), or negligence theory, Nichols v. Burk Royalty Co., 576 P.2d 317 (Okla. 1977), for surface damages, but I find no Oklahoma case imposing an implied restoration duty in a mineral lease. Likewise, in Kansas, prior to legislation, there was no implied duty. Duvanel v. Sinclair Refining Co., 227 P.2d 88 (Kan. 1951); McLeod v. Cities Service Gas Co., 131 F.Supp. 449 (D.C. Kan. 1955). Other jurisdictions having no legislation covering the matter hold there is no implied duty upon the mineral lessee to restore the surface. Warren Petroleum Corp. v. Monzingo, 304 S.W.2d 362 (Texas 1957); Amoco Production Co. v. Carter Farms, 703 P.2d 894 (N.M. 1985). I find no evidence whatever of the “changes in the viewpoint of courts.” While I find some evidence of the legislative trend, I find the judicial one exists only in the hopes and dreams of the authors cited in the majority opinion. In my view we have no business making a blatant change in the law of mineral leases. Rather, I agree with the conclusion of the author of one article cited by the majority: The best solution to this problem seems to be the adoption of a statute, similar to the Kansas and Illinois statutes, requiring restoration of the premises upon completion of operations. L. Davis, Selected Problems Regarding Lessee’s Rights and Obligations to the Surface Owner, 8 Rocky Mtn. Min. L. Inst, at 349 (1963). I respectfully dissent. Smith, J., joins in this dissent.