Maralex Resources, Inc. v. Chamberlain
2014 COA 5
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Maralex Resources, Inc. lessee under US oil and gas leases since 1996, operates wells on federal land.
- Maralex and predecessors used two roads on Powell's adjacent property to access wells.
- Maralex sued Powell to declare prescriptive easement ownership and quiet title for road access across Powell's land.
- Trial court held Maralex lacked standing and deemed easement rights not a recognized property interest.
- Court nonetheless addressed merits, finding Maralex’s road use was permissive, not adverse, to establish no prescriptive easement.
- On appeal, the issue is whether Maralex has standing and whether its use matured into a prescriptive easement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of oil and gas lessee to prescriptive easement | Maralex has a real property interest as lessee. | Common law landlord-tenant rules apply; lessee lacks standing. | Maralex has standing; oil and gas leases create real property interests. |
| Adverse vs. permissive use to create prescriptive easement | Use became adverse over time. | Use was permissive due to gate access and owner control. | Record supports permissive use; no prescriptive easement. |
| Effect of gates/keys on determining adverse use | Keys and gates do not conclusively show permissive use. | Keys/gates indicate permission to use roads. | Provision of keys coupled with owner control supports permissive use; no adverse finding. |
| Summary of evidence weighing on use | Evidence shows right to access through prior permission. | Evidence supports permissive interpretation consistent with trial court. | Trial court's permissive finding is supported by competent evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Cramer, 808 P.2d 358 (Colo.1991) (oil and gas lease purposes and covenants recognized)
- Garman v. Conoco, Inc., 886 P.2d 652 (Colo.1994) (implied covenants in oil and gas leases)
- Keller Cattle Co. v. Allison, 55 P.3d 257 (Colo.App.2002) (mineral interest as real property)
- Hagood v. Heckers, 182 Colo. 337 (Colo.1973) (lessee interest treated as real property for tax purposes)
- City of Northglenn v. Grynberg, 846 P.2d 175 (Colo.1993) (inverse condemnation context recognizing real property interest)
- Concord Oil Co. v. Pennzoil Exploration & Prod. Co., 966 S.W.2d 451 (Tex.1998) (oil and gas lease conveys broad mineral rights)
- Ark. La. Gas Co. v. Evans, 338 S.W.2d 666 (Ark.1960) (mineral lessee's position relative to land ownership)
- Bolack v. Hedges, 240 P.2d 844 (N.M.1952) (oil lease as non-ordinary tenant relation)
- Coral Prod. Co. v. Cent. Res., Inc., 730 N.W.2d 368 (Neb.2007) (oil and gas lease as real property interest)
- Cooper? Carroll v. Holliman, 336 F.2d 425 (5th Cir.1964) (oil and gas lease real property treatment)
- In re Coquina Oil Corp. v. Harry Kourlis Ranch, 643 P.2d 519 (Colo.1982) (condemnation involving oil and gas lessees; narrow exception)
- Lobato v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 938 (Colo.2002) (permissive use exception to prescription)
- Flagstaff Enters. Constr. Inc. v. Snow, 908 P.2d 1183 (Colo.App.1995) (issues not raised not considered)
- Trueblood v. Pierce, 179 P.2d 671 (Colo.1947) (tacking possession between predecessors)
- Brown v. Faatz, 197 P.3d 245 (Colo.App.2008) (presumption of adverse use unless permissive shown)
- Horne v. Hopper, 211 P. 665 (Colo.1922) (permissive use defeats prescription when permitted)
- McIntyre v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 86 P.3d 402 (Colo.2004) (gate presence not per se permissive)
- Enerwest, Inc. v. Dyco Petroleum Corp., 716 P.2d 1130 (Colo.App.1986) (sufficiency of evidence supporting permissive use)
- Berry Patch, Inc. v. Lawrence, 536 P.2d 830 (Colo.App.1975) (evidence weighing in prescription holders)
- Broncucia v. McGee, 475 P.2d 336 (Colo.1970) (standard for appellate review of factual inferences)