Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    Pacific Enterprises Oil Company, A California Corporation v. Charles S. Hertz, 893 F.2d 280, 10th Cir. (1990)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document discusses a contract dispute over the assignment of an oil and gas lease. It summarizes the contract between the parties, the cancellation of the lease by the Bureau of Land Management, and the plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not have to accept assignment of the cancelled lease. It also analyzes whether the plaintiff qualified for protections as a bona fide purchaser and whether Colorado law implies a warranty of marketable title in lease assignment contracts.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Pacific Enterprises Oil Company, A California Corporation v. Charles S. Hertz, 893 F.2d 280, 10th Cir. (1990)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    34 views7 pages
    This document discusses a contract dispute over the assignment of an oil and gas lease. It summarizes the contract between the parties, the cancellation of the lease by the Bureau of Land Management, and the plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not have to accept assignment of the cancelled lease. It also analyzes whether the plaintiff qualified for protections as a bona fide purchaser and whether Colorado law implies a warranty of marketable title in lease assignment contracts.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1990-01-10 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 893 F.2d 280 Docket: 88-1765

    Original Title

    Pacific Enterprises Oil Company, a California Corporation v. Charles S. Hertz, 893 F.2d 280, 10th Cir. (1990)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses a contract dispute over the assignment of an oil and gas lease. It summarizes the contract between the parties, the cancellation of the lease by the Bureau of Land Management, and the plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not have to accept assignment of the cancelled lease. It also analyzes whether the plaintiff qualified for protections as a bona fide purchaser and whether Colorado law implies a warranty of marketable title in lease assignment contracts.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    34 views7 pages

    Pacific Enterprises Oil Company, A California Corporation v. Charles S. Hertz, 893 F.2d 280, 10th Cir. (1990)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document discusses a contract dispute over the assignment of an oil and gas lease. It summarizes the contract between the parties, the cancellation of the lease by the Bureau of Land Management, and the plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not have to accept assignment of the cancelled lease. It also analyzes whether the plaintiff qualified for protections as a bona fide purchaser and whether Colorado law implies a warranty of marketable title in lease assignment contracts.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 7

    893 F.

    2d 280

    PACIFIC ENTERPRISES OIL COMPANY, a California


    Corporation,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    Charles S. HERTZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 88-1765.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Tenth Circuit.
    Jan. 10, 1990.

    Stephen H. Glickman (David A. Hickerson, of Zuckerman, Spaeder,


    Goldstein, Taylor & Kolker, Washington, D.C., with him on the briefs), of
    Zuckerman, Spaeder, Goldstein, Taylor & Kolker, Washington, D.C., for
    defendant-appellant.
    Robert C. Hawley (Kathleen M. Kulasza, of Hawley & VanderWerf,
    Denver, Colo., and William H. Everett, III, Gen. Counsel, Terra
    Resources, Inc., Tulsa, Okl., with him on the brief), of Hawley &
    VanderWerf, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff-appellee.
    Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, TACHA, Circuit Judge, and
    WINDER, District Judge.*
    TACHA, Circuit Judge.

    This is an appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor
    of Terra Resources, Inc., which had initiated a declaratory judgment action to
    determine its rights and obligations under a contract to assign an oil and gas
    lease. We affirm.

    I.
    2

    Defendant Charles S. Hertz, a Pennsylvania resident, applied for an oil and gas
    lease under section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 U.S.C. Secs.

    181-263. The Colorado office of the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM")


    accepted Hertz's application and issued oil and gas lease number C-30483 on
    July 22, 1981. The lease became effective on August 1, 1981.
    3

    On August 21, Hertz entered into a lease assignment agreement with Terra
    Resources, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Tulsa,
    Oklahoma.1 1] Under the terms of the lease, Hertz agreed to assign the lease
    approximately 53 weeks after its effective date. Terra Resources, in turn,
    agreed to accept assignment of the lease and to pay approximately $700,000 to
    Hertz. In consideration for making this agreement, Hertz paid Terra Resources
    $500 on August 21, 1981. The agreement contained no express warranty of
    marketable title.

    On December 3, 1981, several months after the parties entered the agreement to
    assign the lease, but prior to the date set for actual assignment, the BLM
    cancelled Hertz's lease. The BLM found that Hertz's original lease application
    had been defective. Hertz appealed this decision to the Interior Board of Land
    Appeals ("IBLA"), which affirmed the BLM on March 10, 1982.

    On August 9, 1982, 53 weeks and one day after the effective date of
    assignment, Hertz executed an assignment of the lease. On August 13, Terra
    Resources informed Hertz that it would not accept the attempted lease
    assignment because Hertz did not have a leasehold title to assign. Terra
    Resources also stated that it had both actual and constructive notice of the
    lease's title defect and that it, therefore, failed to qualify for protections
    extended by law to bona fide purchasers of subsequently cancelled leases. See
    Bona Fide Purchaser Amendment to the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U.S.C. Sec.
    184(h)(2) [hereinafter "Bona Fide Purchaser Amendment" or "Amendment"].

    Hertz threatened to file suit against Terra Resources for breach of contract. In
    response, Terra Resources initiated this action in the United States District
    Court for the District of Colorado, seeking a declaratory judgment under 28
    U.S.C. Sec. 2201 to determine its rights and obligations under the lease
    agreement. Terra Resources filed a motion for summary judgment, and Hertz
    counterclaimed, requesting damages for Terra Resources' alleged breach of
    contract. The district court granted Terra Resources' motion for summary
    judgment and denied Hertz's claim for damages. Hertz filed this appeal.

    While this appeal was pending, Hertz also appealed the IBLA's decision to
    cancel his lease to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
    On March 11, 1986, the district court ruled that the BLM's cancellation of the

    lease constituted an abuse of discretion. The BLM then vacated part of its
    earlier decision and reissued the original lease to Hertz. Hertz petitioned the
    IBLA for a new lease that would extend the term of the original lease five
    years, so that the lease would expire in 1996. In support of his request, Hertz
    argued that he could neither assign the lease nor conduct operations for much
    of the time that litigation was pending in this matter.
    8

    Hertz next filed suit against the United States in United States Claims Court,
    which returned a verdict in Hertz's favor on February 18, 1988. The claims
    court awarded Hertz $750,000 for the loss of the lease and ordered Hertz to
    reduce his counterclaim in this action by the same amount.

    II.
    9

    Hertz argues that Terra Resources had no legal justification for refusing to
    perform under the lease agreement because the Bona Fide Purchaser
    Amendment, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 184(h)(2), shielded Terra Resources from any
    possible adverse consequences arising from the BLM's cancellation of Hertz's
    lease. Hertz also contends that this case involves genuine issues of material fact
    that preclude summary judgment. Terra Resources counters with four
    arguments: (1) that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this
    case because Hertz failed to demonstrate an injury in fact; (2) that Hertz lacks
    standing to invoke the Bona Fide Purchaser Amendment on behalf of Terra
    Resources; (3) that Terra Resources does not qualify as a bona fide purchaser
    under the Bona Fide Purchaser Amendment and therefore lacked protection
    from any adverse consequences that might have arisen from the BLM's
    cancellation of Hertz's lease; and (4) that Terra Resources was not required to
    accept Hertz's assignment because Colorado law requires that the seller convey
    marketable title.

    III.
    10

    We first determine if Hertz has suffered an injury sufficient to establish subject


    matter jurisdiction over this case. This is a legal question, which we review de
    novo. Carey v. United States Postal Serv., 812 F.2d 621, 623 (10th Cir.1987).
    Article III of the United States Constitution limits the judicial power of the
    federal courts to the resolution of "cases" or "controversies." U.S. Const. art. III.
    A case or controversy does not exist unless a plaintiff can show, at a minimum,
    that he or she has suffered "some actual or threatened injury." Valley Forge
    Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc.,
    454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 758, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). Terra Resources
    argues that Hertz cannot show the requisite injury because the claims court

    fully compensated Hertz for any injuries resulting from the cancellation of the
    lease. We disagree.
    11

    Hertz seeks $701,669.50, the amount allegedly due under the lease agreement,
    as well as interest at the rate of eight percent per year. Colorado law permits a
    claimant to recover eight percent interest from the time a payment is wrongfully
    withheld to either the date of payment or the date judgment is entered. See
    Colo.Rev.Stat. Sec. 5-12-102(1)(b) (Supp.1988); Mesa Sand & Gravel Co. v.
    Landfill, Inc., 776 P.2d 362, 364-66 (Colo.1989) (holding that mere breach of
    contract is sufficient to trigger the Sec. 5-12-102(1)(b) allowance for recovery
    of interest on amounts "wrongfully withheld"); see also Casto v. ArkansasLouisiana Gas Co., 562 F.2d 622, 625 (10th Cir.1977) (state law governs the
    award of prejudgment interest on a state law claim in federal court). If Hertz
    can show that Terra Resources wrongfully breached the lease agreement, he
    will be entitled to recover annual interest payments of eight percent of
    $701,669.50 or approximately $56,000 a year, for the five and a half years
    between the time of the alleged breach and the date that the court of claims
    paid Hertz $750,000. The sum of these interest payments would amount to
    approximately $308,000. Because the sum of $308,000 and $701,669.50 is well
    in excess of the $750,000 that Hertz has already received, it is clear that Hertz
    has adequately alleged that he suffers from uncompensated financial injury. We
    hold that proper subject matter jurisdiction exists over this case.

    IV.
    12

    We next address Terra Resources' argument that, even if it did qualify as a bona
    fide purchaser under the Bona Fide Purchaser Amendment, it still was not
    required to accept Hertz's assignment because Colorado law implies a warranty
    of marketable title in a contract to assign an oil and gas lease. We review this
    question of law de novo. Carey, 812 F.2d at 623. The Colorado Supreme Court
    has not yet ruled on this issue, so we must predict how that court would decide
    the question if faced with it. To guide us in this inquiry, we consider all the
    resources available to us, including Colorado and federal case law, decisions
    from other jurisdictions, and the weight and trend of authority. Farmers
    Alliance Mutual Ins. Co. v. Bakke, 619 F.2d 885, 888 (10th Cir.1980).

    13

    We first examine any Colorado caselaw that is related to the issues in this case.
    It is settled law in Colorado that agreements to convey real property, unless
    they provide otherwise, contain an implied warranty that the conveyance of title
    will be "free from lien or encumbrance." Micheli v. Taylor, 114 Colo. 258, 159
    P.2d 912, 914 (1945) (en banc); see Tilbury v. Osmundson, 143 Colo. 12, 352
    P.2d 102, 105 (1960) (purchaser of land is not required to accept title which

    invites or exposes him to litigation); Heaton v. Nelson, 69 Colo. 320, 194 P.


    614 (1920); W.T. Craft Realty Co. v. Livernash, 27 Colo.App. 1, 146 P. 121,
    123 (1915) (citing Price v. Immel, 48 Colo. 163, 109 P. 941 (1910)). However,
    the actual conveyance, unlike the agreement to convey, contains no implied
    warranty, see Micheli, 159 P.2d at 914, because prior negotiations and
    agreements to convey merge into the deed, which then determines the rights of
    the parties, see Reed v. Dudley, 35 Colo.App. 420, 533 P.2d 507, 508 (1975)
    (citations omitted).
    14

    The substantial weight of authority indicates that there is little reason to expect
    that the Colorado Supreme Court would treat oil and gas leases differently than
    real property. "The majority rule in other states holds that a lessee's interest in a
    gas and oil lease is an interest in real estate. Colorado seems to favor the
    general rule." Hagood v. Heckers, 31 Colo.App. 172, 502 P.2d 961, 963 (1972)
    (citations omitted); see also Brice v. Pugh, 143 Colo. 508, 354 P.2d 1024
    (1960) (per curiam) (treating an oil and gas lease as an interest in real estate for
    purposes of mortgage recording requirements).

    15

    The commentators are in accord that a warranty of marketable title is implied


    by law in a contract to assign an oil and gas lease, even though no such
    warranty is implied in the actual assignment. For example, one treatise writer
    has noted:

    16 respect to ordinary land transactions, it is well established that in the absence of


    with
    a specific provision on the subject, it is implied in every executory contract for the
    sale of land that the vendor must provide merchantable or marketable title. The same
    is true in the instance of contracts for the execution or assignment of an oil and gas
    lease.
    17

    2 E. Kuntz, A Treatise on the Law of Oil and Gas Sec. 19.11, at 38 (1989)
    (footnotes omitted) [hereinafter E. Kuntz]. Another writer has observed:

    18contract to assign an oil and gas lease carries with it an implied covenant of quiet
    A
    enjoyment, although it contains no express warranty.... In an assignment of a lease,
    on the other hand, as distinguished from a contract to assign, there is no implied
    warranty of title, where the law as to the conveyance of land is followed.
    19

    2 A. Casner, American Law of Property, Sec. 10.88, at 707 (1952) (footnotes


    omitted) (citing Sunset Oil Co. v. Whistleman, 77 Colo. 570, 237 P. 1116
    (1925), for the proposition that, in contrast to contracts to assign, there is no
    implied warranty of title in the executed assignment) [hereinafter A. Casner];
    see 3 W. Summers, The Law of Oil and Gas Sec. 544, at 524-29 (1958); see

    also O'Kane v. Walker, 561 F.2d 207, 212 (10th Cir.1977) (effect of absence of
    warranty of title in executed assignment in the New Mexico oil and gas industry
    is that no warranty exists).
    20

    In Sunset Oil Co. v. Whistleman, 77 Colo. 570, 237 P. 1116 (1925), the
    Colorado Supreme Court followed the settled trend that no warranty of title
    should be implied into an assignment of an oil and gas lease. The court rejected
    the argument that the defendant assignor was liable for a breach of contract due
    to a failure of title in the oil and gas lease:

    21 being no covenants of warranty in the assignment between the parties, nor any
    there
    promise or agreement broken by the defendants, as far as the record discloses: hence
    no basis for an action. If the parties had so intended, they could have easily inserted
    such provision in the contract.
    22

    Id., 237 P. at 1116.

    23

    We interpret the Sunset Oil Co. court's reference to a "promise or agreement" to


    be applicable only to subsequent agreements and not prior unexecuted
    agreements, such as a contract to assign. Ordinarily, when an assignment is
    completed, the contract to assign is considered executed and the transaction is
    merged into the assignment. The parties must then look to the express or
    implied provisions of the assignment rather than the contract to assign. E.
    Kuntz Sec. 19.11, at 44-45. Sunset Oil Co. involved an executed assignment.
    Thus, we read the holding of the case to apply only to actual assignments and
    subsequent agreements. This interpretation is the only one in accordance with
    well-settled law. See A. Casner Sec. 10.88, at 707, n. 3 & accompanying text.

    24

    We conclude that the contract between Terra Resources and Hertz to assign the
    oil and gas lease in question contained an implied warranty of marketable title.
    Because Hertz did not have title in the lease at the time set for performance, we
    hold that Terra Resources was under no duty to accept the assignment.

    25

    Finally, we address Hertz's argument that the district court's grant of summary
    judgment was inappropriate in this case. Hertz argues that summary judgment
    was improper because the trial court should have resolved, as a factual matter,
    whether it can be inferred from the practice of the Colorado oil and gas
    industry that in "the absence of an express warranty of marketable title in a
    contract to purchase a federal oil and gas lease ... no such warranty is to be
    implied." We disagree. Hertz's argument presents no material issue since in the
    absence of an express warranty of marketable title in an agreement to assign an

    oil and gas lease, Colorado implies the warranty into the contract, as a matter of
    law. We conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists, see Baker v.
    Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 788 F.2d 650, 653 (10th Cir.1986), and that the grant
    of summary judgment was appropriate.
    V.
    26

    We do not reach the other issues raised on appeal and express no opinion as to
    their proper resolution. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

    Honorable David K. Winder, United States District Judge for the District of
    Utah, sitting by designation

    Terra Resources, Inc., through a statutory merger has been renamed Pacific
    Enterprises Oil Company, a California corporation

    You might also like