especially troublesome because Ellison had taken steps to claim the disputed 154 acres including placing signage on it and making filings with the RRC. Could Ellison really have been bound by signing a paper accepting the description of the 147-acre tract as being the entire interest without signing the underlying stipulation? That’s difficult but it sure seems like a waiver defense arose for Sugg and Richey, but what did it do? Most stipulations are effective from the date they are signed forward but, in this case, production from the Suggs #3 pre-dated the date the boundary agreement was signed. Ellison argued that giving it retroactive effect made it into a correction deed and subject to §5.027 of the Property Code which requires some error to correct. The Boundary Agreement was signed in 2008 but was made effective July 8, 1987 (the date of the Richy/Pilon lease), but there seems to be no reason why any boundary agreement or stipulation of interest cannot be made effective whenever all of the affected parties agree to make it effective and, since it is a cross conveyance, the effective date cannot make it into a correction deed.
with the Supreme Court have been filed. However, the petition for review has not been filed, much less granted, so it may be quite some time before we see a new opinion.
About the Author:
Martin Gibson Martin Gibson’s practice concentrates on energy law, with a particular focus on the exploration and production activities of independent oil and gas companies and individuals, both domestically and internationally. He is Board Certified in Oil, Gas and
Mineral Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and has deep experience in equity and debt financing of oil and gas related entities.
P.O. Box 864 Cedar Creek, Texas 78612
Motions for extension of time to file a petition for review
These materials reflect only the personal views of the author and are not individualized legal advice. It is understood that each case is fact- specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, the author and their law firm cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney- client relationship with the author or their law firm. While every attempt was made to insure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed. Unclaimed Property Audits of the Oil & Gas Industry: Why Us? Written by: Gary Joseph & Ann Fulmer, Keane Consulting & Advisory
More and more companies are finding themselves as unlucky participants in multi-state unclaimed property (“UP”) audits. Upon receipt of audit notification letters, feelings of anxiety and concern may render the recipient confused and slightly frustrated. Once the realization that the audit is happening settles in and the initial game planning commences, a common question may come to mind: “How did our company get selected for audit?” Unfortunately, the answer you’ll receive from industry
professionals and State Unclaimed Property personnel is similar: “There’s a number of reasons why your company may have been selected!” While this response may seem to be vague, it is indeed true. For those dissatisfied with such a broad, inconclusive response, one need only reference the Priority Rules to understand why this response is appropriate and so widely distributed. As the Priority Rules provide custodial right of unclaimed
15
G r o w t h T h r o u g h E d u c a t i o n - A p r i l / M a y / J u n e 2 0 1 9
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker