Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Boldrick v. BTA Oil Producers

Texas Court of Appeals
222 S.W.3d 672 (Tex. App. 2007)


Facts

BTA Oil Producers (BTA) (defendant) executed a joint-operating agreement for the exploration and development of a tract of land. Chevron USA, Inc. (Chevron) was the operator under the agreement. The agreement provided that if a working-interest holder chose non-consent status, an interest carved out of that working interest was “chargeable with a pro rata portion of all costs and expenses under the operating agreement in the same manner as if [the carved interest] were a working interest.” BTA assigned an overriding royalty interest on the land to James Boldrick (plaintiff). This overriding royalty interest was assigned expressly subject to the terms of the operating agreement. Chevron drilled a producing well on the land, but BTA elected non-consent status. As a result of this status, BTA was not entitled to payments from the well’s production until BTA paid the required non-consent penalty to Chevron. Because BTA was not receiving any royalties from the well, Boldrick also was not receiving overriding royalty payments. Boldrick brought suit to recover overriding royalties from BTA. BTA filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that Boldrick’s overriding royalties were not payable until BTA received its own royalty payments after its non-consent penalties were paid in full. The trial court granted BTA’s motion for summary judgment, and Boldrick appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Hill, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.