Homer Merriman v. Xto Energy, Inc.
407 S.W.3d 244
| Tex. | 2013Background
- Merriman owns the surface estate of ~40 acres in Limestone County, used for a cattle operation with permanent fencing, a barn, and corrals.
- XTO Energy, as mineral lessee, sought to drill a gas well on the tract after contacting Merriman in 2007; Merriman opposed the location as interfering with his cattle use.
- XTO drilled the well despite Merriman’s opposition; Merriman filed suit for temporary and permanent injunctions, later seeking removal of the well.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for XTO; the court of appeals affirmed, concluding Merriman failed to prove XTO failed to accommodate his surface use.
- Texas Supreme Court affirms the court of appeals, clarifying the accommodation doctrine and the evidentiary burden on Merriman regarding reasonable alternatives to his cattle operation.
- The Court declines to require Merriman to prove no alternative exists on Merriman’s leased lands, and focuses on whether Merriman showed no reasonable alternative for maintaining his cattle operation on the owned tract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Merriman prove no reasonable alternatives for his cattle operation? | Merriman contends he need show no reasonable alternatives for cattle operation (not all agricultural uses). | XTO argues Merriman failed to show no reasonable alternative; other options existed. | No; Merriman failed to prove no reasonable alternatives for his cattle operation. |
| Should Merriman have proven no reasonable alternatives on leased lands as well as the owned tract? | Merriman argues the court should consider available alternatives on all lands, including leased ones. | XTO argues only the owned tract matters for the accommodation analysis. | Court held it was improper to require proof on leased lands; focus remains on owned tract’s cattle operation. |
| Does the accommodation doctrine require a surface owner to show unreasonableness of all alternative methods, not merely greater inconvenience? | Merriman contends the doctrine bars preclusion when no reasonable alternative exists; evidence of inconvenience is insufficient. | XTO contends more than inconvenience is needed; no reasonable alternative must be shown. | Evidence of inconvenience or partial impairment is insufficient; must show no reasonable alternative method exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haupt v. Tarrant County Water Control & Improvement Dist. No. 1, 854 S.W.2d 909 (Tex. 1993) (accommodation doctrine balancing surface and mineral rights; specific on alternatives and surface condition)
- Getty Oil Co. v. Jones, 470 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. 1971) (integration of surface condition and reasonable alternative methods in accommodation)
- Williams v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 420 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. 1967) (evidence of inconvenience not dispositive of lack of reasonable alternatives)
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (no-evidence standard; required burden on lack of reasonable alternatives)
- Getty Oil, 470 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. 1971), 470 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. 1971) (see above)