![]() ![]() This clause typically divides the lease’s duration into a primary term for a fixed period of time and a secondary term that continues after the primary term expires for “as long thereafter as oil, gas or other mineral is produced.” Id. The dispute in this case focuses on the habendum clause, which defines the duration of a mineral-lease estate. Parties are free to decide their contract’s terms, and the law’s strong public 2 policy favoring freedom of contract compels courts to respect and enforce the terms on which the parties have agreed. ![]() We avoid construing contracts in a way that renders contract language meaningless. Words must be construed in the context in which they are used, but courts cannot interpret a contract to ignore clearly defined terms. 2002) (“When a lease terminates is always a question of resolving the intention of the parties from the entire instrument.” (quotation omitted)). When construing a contract, our primary concern is to give effect to the written expression of the parties’ intent as expressed within the four corners of the contract. Summary judgments and the construction of contracts present questions of law that we review de novo. Standard of Review and Legal Principles The general principles that govern the construction of contracts apply to the construction of mineral leases. Thistle Creek contends that Ironroc was required to show, and failed to conclusively establish for purposes of summary judgment, that there was “production in paying quantities.” A. VALIDITY OF THE KETTLER LEASE In its first issue, Thistle Creek challenges the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that one of the leases-the Kettler Lease-was valid and not terminated due to a lack of production. Thistle Creek appeals, contending that the trial court erred by granting Ironroc’s motion for summary judgment and denying Thistle Creek statutory damages and attorney’s fees. The trial court signed a final judgment accordingly. After the trial court rendered a partial summary judgment in Ironroc’s favor that one of the leases was not terminated and ruled at trial that Thistle Creek could not recover certain statutory damages and attorney’s fees, the parties nonsuited or settled their remaining claims without Thistle Creek waiving its right to appeal the two adverse rulings. The primary dispute involved whether the leases had terminated and whether Ironroc owed Thistle Creek unpaid proceeds. 36602 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Thistle Creek Ranch LLC, as the lessor of two mineral leases, and appellee Ironroc Energy Partners, LLC, as the lessee, sued each other for various claims related to the leases. IRONROC ENERGY PARTNERS, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 21st District Court Washington County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14-20-00347-CV THISTLE CREEK RANCH, LLC, Appellant V. Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 3, 2022. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |