Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
By Elena L. Rorabaugh
The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled on Friday that an oil and gas lease was not forfeited by the failure of the operators to pay delay rentals lexis.com subscribers may view the enhanced opinion | Lexis Advance]. In Dewing v. Abarta Oil & Gas Co., the landowners (the “Dewings”) executed an oil and gas lease that was owned by Abarta Oil & Gas Co. Inc., Talisman Energy USA, Inc. (“Talisman”) and Range Resources (“Range”, collectively, the “Operators”). The lease provided that delay rentals be paid for the primary term for the lease unless and until a well is drilled on the property or a well unit is drilled. The lease also stated that it “shall never be subject to a civil action or other proceeding to enforce a claim of forfeiture due to Lessee’s alleged failure to perform as specified herein, unless Lessee has received written notice of Lessor’s demand and thereafter fails or refuses to satisfy Lessor’s demand within 60 days from the receipt of the notice” (the “Forfeiture Clause”). The Dewings did not receive delay rentals for a period of time and sent notice of such failure to Talisman, which informed the Dewings that Range was handling the payment of delay rentals. The Dewings subsequently sent notice that the lease was forfeited to Range, and Range thereafter paid the delay rentals to the Dewings. The Dewings filed the underlying civil action, alleging that the lease had been forfeited and abandoned for failure to timely pay the delay rental. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of the Operators, stating that although the Dewings had the right to seek forfeiture under the Forfeiture Clause, they did not prove that the Operators did not materially breach the lease. Citing a prior decision, Linder v. SWEPI, 549 Fed. Apx. 104 (3d. Cir. 2013), the Superior Court held that unless a contract contains a “time-is-of-the-essence” clause, the breach of the delay rental provision by making a late payment is not a material breach [lexis.com subscribers may view the enhanced opinion | Lexis Advance]. Further, when a lease includes a 60-day cure period, it is evident that the parties intended to improve the chances of an out-of-court resolution to a breach caused by the late payment of delay rentals. Therefore, the Superior Court held that the Operators had not materially breached or abandoned the oil and gas lease under dispute.
Copyright 2015 • Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C. • Two Gateway Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 • 412-394-5400 • Administrative Watch is privately distributed by Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., for the general information of its clients, friends and readers. It is not designed to be, nor should it be considered or used as, the sole source of analyzing and resolving legal problems. If you have, or think you may have, a legal problem or issue relating to any of the matters discussed in the Administrative Watch, consult legal counsel.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.