Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog

The Texas Supreme Court recently declined to hear the Eckford Heirs’ appeal in Case No. 26-0003, Heirs of Eckford v. Nixon et al. The Court of Appeals’ opinion is Eckford v. Korth, 2025 WL 2845033 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, Oct. 8, 2025). The case was the subject of a Texas Monthly article, One Family Worked the Land for Generations. Another Believes They Lost an Inheritance. Both Are Still Waiting (Sept. 12, 2025).

The suit is over title to 147.5 acres of land in Karnes County, in the heart of the Eagle Ford play. The land was acquired by Louis and Eliza Eckford, freed from slavery on June 19, 1865. They had nine children. Louis died in 1896 without a will. According to the Texas Monthly article,

The 1880 census listed Louis as a farmer, and the Eckfords were among the early residents of a settlement described in a local paper as a community of “intelligent, progressive and prosperous colored people.” But their hold on the land, and their prosperity, proved to be tenuous. Just three years after the last purchase, records show Louis was declared insane by a local jury and transferred to what was known as the Texas State Lunatic Asylum in Austin.

Here is a hypothetical: OilCo A and OilCo B each acquire oil and gas leases from mineral owners holding undivided interests in Blackacre. The two companies are unable to agree on a joint operating agreement. OilCo A drills and completes wells, and OilCo B becomes a non-consenting cotenant, entitled to its share of net profit from the wells after payout. Issue: When does OilCo B owe royalties to its royalty owners?

Those are the facts in Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc., v. Elberta M. Royalty, LLC (Tex.App.-El Paso, August 19, 2026). Pioneer and Henry Petroleum each held oil and gas leases covering the same land in Upton County. Pioneer’s lease was from Elberta M. Royalty. Henry drilled wells without a joint operating agreement from Pioneer. Pioneer did not respond to Elberta’s demands for payment of royalty, and Elberta filed suit. While the suit was pending the wells paid out, Henry paid Pioneer its share of revenue, and Pioneer then paid Elberta its share of royalty from the date of first production – two years after production began. (Pioneer and Henry subsequently did enter into a joint operating agreement.) Elberta claimed it was also entitled to statutory interest and attorneys’ fees under Texas Natural Resources Code Chapter 91.

The Court of Appeals held that Pioneer’s obligation to pay royalty under Elberta’s lease accrued when production occurred, not when Pioneer got paid, including statutory interest.

Recently the El Paso Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment denying Tom Craddick’s claim that Cimarex and BPX had conspired to wash out his overriding royalty interest in an oil and gas lease owned by BPX. Craddick v. Cimarex Energy, et al., No. 08-24-00010-CV.

An overriding royalty is created when the owner of an oil and gas lease assigns the lease but reserves a royalty interest in production. An overriding royalty can also be created by assignment from the lessee. Because the overriding royalty is carved out of the lessee’s working interest, it terminates when the lease terminates.

A “washout” of an overriding royalty occurs when the lessee releases the lease even though there is a well or wells on the lease that continues to produce in paying quantities. The overriding royalty is “washed out” by the release.

Last month the Texas Supreme Court decided three cases involving Texas’ Open Beaches Act. The Court issued one opinion in all three cases: No. 24-0237, Texas General Land Office and Dawn Buckingham, in her official capacity as the Texas Land Commissioner, v. SaveRGV, Sierra Club, and Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, Inc.; No 24-0407, Cameron County v. SaveRGV, Sierra Club, and Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas Inc; and No. 24-0457, Ken Paxton, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Texas, v. Save RGV, Sierra Club, and Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, Inc.  The cases reminded me of a little Texas history.

The three plaintiffs filed suit because in 2013 the Legislature passed HB 2623, amending the Open Beaches Act, Tex. Nat. Res. Code Chapter 61, to authorize the General Land Office and Cameron County to adopt rules allowing them to temporarily close beaches “for space flight activities.” The bill passed at the request of SpaceX, which maintains a launch site on Boca Chica Beach on the coast in Cameron County (now incorporated as the town of Starbase. The GLO and the county have at restricted access to Boca Chica beach when SpaceX launches take place.

Plaintiffs claimed that HB 2623 violates Article I, Section 33 of the Texas Constitution, approved by voters in 2009, which states:

On May 22 the Texas Supreme Court issued opinions in Boerschig v. Rio Grande Electric Cooperative, No. 24-0213. Four Justices joined the majority opinion by Justice Busby; Justice Hawkins also filed a concurring opinion; and Justice Bland, joined by Chief Justice Blacklock and Justices Lehrmann and Huddle, filed a dissent.

The case concerns an old electric line running across property owned by John Boerschig. Rio Grande Electric wanted to update and add to the line, and Boerschig objected. The result was a lawsuit, filed in 2014, tried to a jury, and finally reaching the Texas Supreme Court. The implications of the case troubled the electric and pipeline industries who filed several amicus briefs, including the the Texas Electric Cooperatives, the Texas Pipeline Association, Oncor Electric, Southwestern Public Service, Texas New Mexico Power, American Electric Power, and CenterPoint Energy. Two amicus briefs were filed by those advocating for Mr. Boerschig’s position, Texas Farm Bureau and Texas Land & Mineral Owners Association.

Rio Grande Electric was formed in 1945 by ranchers in South Texas as part of the electrification of rural America. A member-owned non-profit utility, it began acquiring easements to lay electric lines using “blanket” easements that only describe the land across which the line will be laid and not the actual line location. Such blanket easements were common for electric lines and pipelines in the early part of the last century. Between one-third and one-half of Rio Grande’s lines are built on such easements. In 1947 Rio Grande acquired such an easement from the Estate of Mary Clamp to place electric lines on her 5,684-acre Ranch. Rio Grande constructed a line across some 1.6 miles of the Clamp property.