to unit operators selling production in accordance with La. R.S. 30:10(A)(3)?”.
Dennis also argues that the majority’s interpretation goes against the rules of statutory interpretation. “The general rule of statutory construction is that a specific statute controls over a broader, more general statute.” 15 This rule has been applied in the context of “Louisiana’s oil and gas conservation law, modern statutes intended to alter and override general legal principles that were inadequate for mineral production and conservation.” 16 In one case, the court held “that the more recent legislative enactments of Title 30 and Title 31 supercede in part La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 490 ’s general concept of ownership of the subsurface by the surface owner of land.” 17 The court in that case also recognized the same quasi- contractual relation that is evidenced in this case. In 1995, the legislature revised the civil code articles governing negotiorum gestio . Specifically, the previous version of the article required that the gestor act “on his own accord” and was updated to the current requirement that the gestor act “without authority.” This revision expresses that the requirement is not merely voluntariness, but “an absence of authority altogether.” 18 Dennis further argues that the operator here is not acting without authority because he is “specifically authorized to sell an unleased mineral owner’s share of production under La. R.S. 30:10(A)(3).” 19 Thus, the requirement of acting “without authority” cannot be met, so negotiorum gestio cannot be applied in the context of La. R.S. 30:10(A)(3), and to do so would violate the rules of statutory interpretation according to Dennis’s dissenting opinion. In the meantime, we must now wait for clarification from the Louisiana Supreme Court as to whether operators can deduct post-production costs from the unleased mineral owner’s share in the form of an answer to the official question certified by the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of “Does La. Civ. Code art. 2292 apply [15] Burge v. Louisiana , 2010-2229,p. 5 (La. 2/11/11), 54 So. 3d 1110, 1113 [16] Self , 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 23969 at 14. See Nunez v. Wainoco Oil & Gas Co., 488 So. 2d 955 (La. 1986). [17] Nunez v. Wainoco Oil & Gas Co., 488 So. 2d 955, 964 (La. 1986). [18] Self , 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 23969 at 18. [19] Id . at 19.
Authored by Patrick Schenkel and Kate Brasseux
CONTACT If you have any questions regarding this case law update or suggestions for topics to be covered in future issues, please call our office at 713-229-0360 or contact:
Patrick Schenkel Partner, Houston pschenkel@oglawyers.com www.oglawyers.com
The content of this publication and any attachments are not intended to be and should not be relied upon as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship. © 2023 Oliva Gibbs LLP. All rights reserved. This publication may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Houston (principal office): 815 Walker St., Suite 1140, Houston, Texas 77002, 713-229-0360 | Columbus: 580 North Fourth Street Suite 260, Columbus, Ohio 43215, 614-349-4525 | Lafayette: 4906 Ambassador, Caffery Parkway, Building K, Lafayette, LA 70508, 713-229-0360 | Midland: 223 West Wall Street Suite 299, Midland, TX 79701, 713-229-0360 | Oklahoma City: 301 Lilac Drive, Suite 250, Edmond, OK 73034, 405-395-2615 |
Avoid headaches from explaining the ins and outs of royalty ownership to your interest owners... ...Let us help! National Association of Royalty Owners 7030 S Yale Ave. Suite 404, Tulsa, OK 74136 www.naro-us.org Phone: 918-794-1660 Fax: 918-794-1662
• Fact-filled pamphlets and books
• Royalty management seminars
• Royalty owner helpline
• Web site education resources
22
N at i onal A ssociation of D i v i s i on O rder A nalys t s
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting