Tucker v. Hugoton Energy Corp.
Kansas Supreme Court
855 P.2d 929 (1993)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Mary Tucker (plaintiff) was a lessor under an oil and gas lease that was assigned to Hugoton Energy Corporation (Hugoton) (defendant) as a lessee. The lease contained a shut-in royalty clause providing that if a well was able to produce gas but there was no market for the gas, the lessee could pay Tucker a shut-in royalty to maintain the lease. The primary term of the lease expired, but there were wells producing gas in payable quantities on the property, keeping the lease in effect. The wells produced massive amounts of water during production and were expensive to maintain as a result. When industrial-gas sales declined, Hugoton’s predecessor in interest lost significant sales revenue. While sales were still struggling due to the limited market for gas, the wells began having mechanical issues. Hugoton’s predecessor in interest decided to not repair the wells, but rather to stop production and invoke the shut-in royalty clause in the lease, paying monthly shut-in royalties. Tucker brought suit for a declaratory judgment that the lease had expired due to the wells’ failure to produce gas in paying quantities. The trial court held that the shut-in royalty payments had kept the lease in effect. Tucker appealed. Hugoton cross-appealed, arguing that Tucker’s acceptance of the shut-in royalty payments estopped Tucker from seeking to cancel the lease.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lockett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.