Texas Property Code suspends such limitations until the unclaimed royalties are paid to the comptroller via the escheat statutes 54 ; and (c) Devon’s representations in the release agreement equitably tolled limitations because they were misleading and fraudulently induced Perdido to hold off on filing suit. 55 Conclusion The standard rule is that Texas division orders “bind underpaid royalty owners until revoked” with detrimental reliance protecting the payor and unjust enrichment protecting the underpaid payees who are signatories to the division order. Nonetheless, detrimental reliance is merely a sufficient condition for the payor’s protection from double liability, while unjust enrichment of the payor is the necessary condition for the payees’ protection. To provide “stability in the oil and gas industry,” the SCOT and the Texas Legislature tend to be pro- payor by minimizing the duties the Texas Division Order and Suspense Statute assigns to payors and maximizing the hoops payees must jump through for a successful cause of action. 56
Meanwhile, the COA’s holding in Perdido completely disregards Texas’ following foundational principles for royalty mis-payment cases. 57 Exposing payors to double liability is unjust when they rely on an erroneous division order “but have not personally benefited from the errors.” 58 In a few circumstances, a royalty owner has a viable claim against the payor based on unjust enrichment, but only when the payor “profited at the royalty owner’s expense .” 59 At that point, the payor then becomes liable but only for the part of the royalty owner’s payment the payee unjustly retained; the payor “is not liable for the amounts it paid out to other interest owners.” 60 54). Cross-Pet’r’s Br. at 12. 55). Cross-Pet’r’s Br. at 14. 56). Gavenda, 705 S.W.2d at 692. 57). Pet’r’s Br. at 76. 58). Gavenda, 705 S.W.2d at 692 (citing Middleton, 613 S.W.2d at 249); see Pet’r’s Br. at 76. 59). HECI Expl. Co. v. Neel, 982 S.W.2d 881, 891 (Tex. 1998); see Pet’r’s Br. at 76. 60). Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 123 (Tex. 1996) (citing Gavenda, 705 S.W.2d at 692-93).
Don’t Let Your Deal Get Abducted (Rejected) by Alien (Affidavits! Updates to 60 O.S. § 121)
Oklahoma
By Melissa P. Martin and Scott P. Sullivan of The Title Law Group, PLLC, and Melissa R. Gardner of Ball, Morse, and Lowe.
One of the most exciting times in a person’s life is buying a house. One of the most important tenets of our country is the ability for citizens to hold and own real property. Oklahoma, in particular, is a lovely place to own real property with the warm temperatures, many days of sunshine, and a BIG, beautiful sky. Now imagine, buying your piece of paradise, taking your Deed to the County Clerk’s Office for recording to stake your claim, and your deed being rejected, all because you failed to attach an “alien affidavit”. This is Oklahoma, in the United States of America, on Earth; what in outer space are they asking you for? Well, the good news is that they are not asking you for any documentation from the extraterrestrial type of alien (Hi, ET!). Instead, they are referring to a new affidavit now required by an update to Oklahoma
Statute 60 O.S. § 121, effective November 1, 2023, regarding land ownership by non-resident aliens of the United States. But…
How on Saturn Did We Get Here? The United States is a nation founded on
immigration. From the first settlement at Jamestown in 1607, to today, most Americans can trace their heritage to foreign lands. Prior to the Naturalization Act of 1870 1 , immigration was primarily regulated by the states where ports of entry were located. It was not until 1875 that immigration was held to be the purview of the Federal Government 2 although the U.S. 1.) 16 Stat. 254. 2.) Henderson v. Mayor of City of New York, 92 U.S. 259; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275.
19
G rowth T hrough E ducat i on - A pr i l / M ay / J une 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online