Neumin Production Co. v. Tiger Bend, Ltd.
58 So. 3d 1088
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Neumin Production Co. and Guardian Oil & Gas, Inc. filed concursus to determine who owns royalty proceeds from Foreman No. 1 well in Evangeline Parish.
- Two leases involved: Tiger Bend, Ltd. holds surface; Mikell Group claims a mineral servitude on the same tracts.
- Mikell Group asserts a single mineral servitude created by a 1983 Act of Partition, Exchange and Agreement covering contiguous lands.
- Tiger Bend contends there are multiple servitudes and that the partition did not create a single servitude; minerals reserved were extinguished by prescription.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Tiger Bend, declaring it owner of all funds and future royalties; Mikell Group appeals.
- Core issue is whether the 1983 partition created a single mineral servitude or multiple servitudes and whether prescription interrupted by production elsewhere affected the tract
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single mineral servitude was created by the 1983 partition. | Mikell Group argues the partition created a single contiguous servitude. | Tiger Bend asserts multiple servitudes; no single servitude covered all parcels. | No single servitude; multiple servitudes existed; Tiger Bend prevails. |
| Whether prescription interrupted by nonuse runs on the mineral servitude covering the Evangeline Parish tract. | Mikell Group contends interruption occurred due to production elsewhere. | Tiger Bend argues no interruption since no single servitude existed. | Prescription not interrupted; servitude prescribed in 1993; Tiger Bend owns minerals. |
| Whether partition language reserved minerals in a way that created separate mineral interests per tract. | Mikell Group contends reservation created a single mineral servitude. | Tiger Bend argues reservation created multiple mineral servitudes aligned with tract owners. | Reservation created multiple separable mineral servitudes; no single servitude. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. Giauque, 154 La. 491, 97 So. 669 (1923) (definition of contiguous land for single servitude)
- Energy Dev. Corp. v. Quality Envtl. Processes, Inc., 734 So.2d 965 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1999) (contiguity and servitude creation principles)
- Horton v. Mobley, 578 So.2d 977 (La.App. 2d Cir.) (mineral servitude entails executive rights; prescription rules)
- Whitehall Oil Co. v. Heard, 197 So.2d 672 (La.App. 3 Cir.) (single servitude requires contiguity or contractual construction to create one)
- Hayden v. Phillips, 646 So.2d 1014 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1994) (conveyance includes minerals not expressly reserved)