pooling offers that a greater than 10% charge for risk was reasonable. 3) Ammonite failed to provide survey data or a metes and bounds description of their tract. 4) Forced pooling here would not prevent waste. 5) Ammonite offered no expert witnesses. Accordingly, the TRC found that the first requirement of MIPA, a fair and reasonable offer, was not met. When the Court of Appeals conducts a judicial review of the TRC’s decision in a case, it will apply the substantial evidence standard. This means that a court may only reverse and remand if it finds the TRC’s proceedings were “in violation of constitutional or statutory provision,” “in excess of the agency’s statutory authority,” “made through unlawful procedure,” “affected by other error of law,” “not reasonably supported by substantial evidence,” or it the decision was “arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.” This standard of review does not entail the court weighing the evidence provided during the administrative hearing and coming to a decision regarding its fairness. Rather, the court’s role here is to determine whether some reasonable basis existed to justify the TRC’s decision. This is a low bar. This case is fundamentally an administrative law case and demonstrates the deference Texas courts give to agency decision making processes. In applying the substantial evidence standard of review here, the court determined that the TRC’s dismissal of Ammonite’s MIPA application was proper based on some of the reasons noted above. These factors were more than enough to show the TRC had “some reasonable basis” for their decision, which is all the deferential standard employed by the court requires. As a matter of policy, the TRC does not want to force landowners to pool their lands. It would prefer that lessors and lessees come to a mutually agreeable contractual agreement without involving the courts. Accordingly, the purpose of MIPA is to encourage voluntary pooling, not to be the proverbial stick in a mineral
owner’s toolbox when a carrot cannot convince an adjoining owner to voluntarily pool. 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:
Brad Gibbs Partner, Houston bgibbs@kolawllp.com
Eli Kiefaber Partner, Houston rkiefaber@kolawllp.com
Zachary Oliva Partner, Houston zoliva@kolawllp.com
_____________________________________________ www.kolawllp.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. © 2022 Kiefaber & Oliva 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: One East Livingston Avenue, Suite B, Columbus, Ohio 43215, 614- 349-4525 | Oklahoma City: 9520 N. May Avenue, Suite 219 Oklahoma City, OK 73120, 405-757-8797
10
N at i onal A ssociation of D i v i s i on O rder A nalys t s
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs