139 So. 3d 22
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Haskins and the Fords sue to declare ownership of mineral rights underlying two 20.2-acre parcels in Caddo Parish, naming the Lesters and several corporate assignees, plus Braniff as a plaintiff to the extent of an acre donated to her.
- In 1935 Elbert Moncrief purchased the property from the Lesters’ predecessors, with the property then community property of Elbert and Marie Burrow Moncrief, who had a 3/4 interest and Marie’s usufruct over the balance.
- A 1953 mineral lease covered the property; by 1956 the TP SUK Minor Unit No. 1 Well began production at great depth and continued thereafter.
- A 1965 judgment of possession awarded Marie 3/4 of the community property; Marie’s heirs and Martha’s children received the naked interests, while Marie held a usufruct over the rest.
- A 1970 donation by Marie to George and Burette conveyed all of her rights in the Elbert tract, but reserved minerals and income from minerals for Marie’s life.
- A 1970 clarification instrument and a 1971 correction instrument revised the reservation language, clarifying that Marie reserved usufruct of income rather than a mineral servitude; Marie’s language later directed income to Marie during her life.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of donation and instruments on mineral servitudes | Haskins argues Marie reserved mineral servitudes to George and Burette; plaintiffs own minerals via donation. | Lesters allege Marie’s 1970 donation extinguished mineral servitudes and created only usufruct of income; clarification shows no servitude. | No mineral servitude created; Marie reserved usufruct of income. |
| Open mines doctrine applicability in 1965 judgment | Marie’s usufruct included minerals up to 9,059 feet under open mines doctrine. | Open mines doctrine does not limit naked owners’ rights as argued; doctrine applied to 1965 context does not divest defendants. | Open mines doctrine does not support plaintiffs’ claimed scope; rights allocated as per doctrine and later instruments. |
| Extent and status of mineral rights after 1977 credit sale deeds | The credit sale deeds conveyed minerals that included the disputed tract to plaintiffs’ predecessors with Marie’s rights unclear. | George and Burette owned all land including minerals; Marie’s usufruct only affected income, not mineral sovereignty. | George and Burette owned mineral servitudes; plaintiffs have no ownership of the minerals. |
| Prescription of nonuse of mineral servitudes | Servitudes may have prescribed by nonuse due to lack of production in the deeded depths. | Production in the nearby unit interrupted nonuse and kept servitudes from lapsing; unit production was within the unit’s bounds. | Nonuse prescription did not run; mineral servitudes did not prescribe. |
| Validity of Chesapeake lease and related documents covering plaintiffs’ land | The 2009 lease and memorandum purport to cover plaintiffs’ land and should be invalid. | Documents do not affect ownership; rights remain with Lesters through George and Burette’s servitudes. | Leases and related instruments found not to invalidate plaintiffs’ ownership or rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (deference to trial court findings; standard of review for factual questions)
- Mason v. Exco Operating Co., 132 So.3d 1004 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2014) (contract interpretation; de novo review on questions of law)
- Total Minatome Corp. v. Union Texas Prod. Corp., 766 So.2d 685 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2000) (contract interpretation and implied terms; de novo standard applicable to legal questions)
- Gueno v. Medlenka, 117 So.2d 817 (La. 1960) (open mines doctrine; usufruct rights and mineral exploitation)
- King v. Buffington, 126 So.2d 326 (La. 1961) (mineral rights and open mine principles)
- Doyal v. Pickett, 628 So.2d 184 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1993) (contract interpretation and parol evidence limits)
- Williams v. Hawthorne, 601 So.2d 672 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1992) (interpretation of instruments; reliance on authentic acts)
- Stephenson v. Petrohawk Properties, L.P., 37 So.3d 1145 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2010) (contract interpretation; ambiguity standard; intent of parties)