Ohio: Hupp v. Beck Energy; Ohio Supreme Court will Hear Case

Seventh Appeals Court reverses Trial Court Decision.    Essentially Landowners loose. Read all 38 pages here.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/7/2014/2014-ohio-4255.pdf

Views: 3355

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jimmy Wilson on September 30, 2014 at 2:29am

Did they appeal to Supreme Court ?

Permalink Reply by Olive Sue on September 30, 2014 at 6:18am

I've been told Supreme Court will not hear it.  Sad that the only thing this case has done is extend the primary term another 2 years.

Permalink Reply by Lori Weeks on September 30, 2014 at 9:50am

So in plain English...

Does this mean that that Hupp and the landowner's won? 

I read the court documents and they are confusing to me...

Thank You!

Permalink Reply by Den on September 30, 2014 at 11:51am

landowners lost.  big oil company wins. I did not follow the reasoning for why this is not a perpetual contract, i'll have to read it again.  This contract, once signed, has no way for the landowner to get out of the contract, even if the oil company never drills.

Permalink Reply by Dexter Green on September 30, 2014 at 12:47pm

"I did not follow the reasoning for why this is not a perpetual contract"

The ruling basically says that it's not perpetual because there is a clear term outlined.  It's a five year primary plus five year extension, or if the secondary term has licked in it is for the life of the operation.  The reason this was an issue in the first place was because Beck chose to try to keep paying delay rentals well after the outlined terms had expired.  

Permalink Reply by Den on September 30, 2014 at 4:24pm

so all those people, that had no wells in the first term of their lease, should be released.   I didn't get that from reading the outcome, if so, that is a win for the landowner, but I didn't see that as the case.

Permalink Reply by Dexter Green on October 1, 2014 at 6:25am

They are released from the lease when either 1. the term has ended or 2. when Beck fails to pay the rental due within that term.  That's how these leases have always worked.  It's an "unless" lease.  It goes void unless a rental is paid or a well is drilled.  Beck thought they could steal a little more so they kept paying rentals outside of the term, which is obviously not ok. 

Permalink Reply by Olive Sue on September 30, 2014 at 11:54am

Sadly no, the landowners have lost this case.  Basically the suit was saying the lease was not properly written and the local judges concurred and would have voided all the leases without production, however 7th District did not agree and the leases will stand.  Not a good decision for the landowner but a big win for Beck Energy.

Permalink Reply by searcherone on October 1, 2014 at 5:17am

For what it is worth:

Monroe County Beacon, Oct 2, 2014 p. 16.   last paragraph on article about the Beck Energy case.

"With the decision of the appeals court, the case will be remanded back to the Monroe County Common Pleas Court with Judge Lane sitting as judge.  There is a possibility that the case could eventually make its way to the Ohio Supreme Court."

and if one checks the last page of the 38 it does say remanded back to the court;    So my question does anyone know what that means and what points could be brought forth?   lol maybe the fat lady has not had her chance to sign yet.

Permalink Reply by Puzzled on October 1, 2014 at 5:20am

When the United States Supreme Court grants certiorari and reverses a decision of a state supreme court or a Federal appeals court, it may remand the case. Likewise, an appeals court may remand a case to a trial court. A remand may be a full remand, essentially ordering an entirely new trial; when an appellate court grants a full remand, the lower court's decision is "reversed and remanded."

Alternatively, it may be "with instructions" specifying, for example, that the lower court must use a different legal standard when considering facts already adduced at trial. It may also be a partial remand as when an appellate court affirms a conviction while directing the lower court to revisit the sentencing phase. Finally, it may remand a case upon concluding that the lower court not only made a mistake but also did not adjudicate issues that must be considered.

A federal court may also remand when a civil case is filed in a state court and the defendant removes the case to the local federal district court. If the federal court decides that the case was not one in which removal was permissible, it may "remand" the case to state court. Here, the federal court is not an appellate court as in the case above, and the case was remanded because the removal to the federal court was improperly taken, not that the state court did anything erroneous.

In the federal tribunals in the United States, it is also possible for an Article III court to remand a case to an Article I court (if the case was originally decided by the Article I court and then appealed to the Article III court),[2] or for a higher-level administrative tribunal within an executive agency to remand a case to a lower-level tribunal within the same agency

Permalink Reply by Puzzled on October 1, 2014 at 5:22am

When the trial judge has issued an opinion and it is appealed to the appellate court, the appellate court will review the trial court's opinion for any errors in the law. Where the trial court hasn't determined enough facts or made an error in the law, the appellate court will remand the case with instructions to the trial court. The trial court then must comply with the appellate court's remand, following the instructions (e.g., the appellate court will say something like "remanded for further facts determination as to..." or "remanded for further consideration based on the our decision"). After the trial court reconsiders the case in light of the appellate court's instructions, the case can be appealed again to the appellate court based on any errors in the law or procedure followed by the trial court. The trial court judge can come to the same decision as before, but not without additional justification that responds to the appellate court's instructions

Permalink Reply by Olive Sue on October 1, 2014 at 8:38am

Many of these leases have expired by terms of the lease ( I believe many were 10 yr primary ones) and am I not right that the tolling of Oct. 2012 stopped the expiration and now will extend until all the DUST settles, which right now is two years more.  To me this gives the opportunity for many to be tied up by either incorporation in a unit with XTO or having been sold to Eclipse, Gulfport etc.  If you go back you will find these companies sided with Beck Energy.  I still find it difficult to know we were a part of the case when we chose not to be.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service