Data Loading...

2019 Q3

260 Views
29 Downloads
7.02 MB

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Copy link

DOWNLOAD PDF

REPORT DMCA

RECOMMEND FLIP-BOOKS

2019 Q3

National Association of Division Order Analysts July / August / September 2019

PERSONAL ATTENTION • ETHICAL STANDARDS • PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

PURCHASING ROYALTIES ACROSS THE NATION

Quick, no-obligation offers

Royalty valuations

Mineral rights appraisals

Free estate and title transfer consults

Pro bono Medicaid & social services appraisals

[email protected] • 1-800-950-6954 • www.LegacyRoyalties.com

ENERGY LAW ESSENTIALS: COMMUNICATION

listening is one of our strong suits

TOP LISTED IN THE U.S. IN ENERGY LAW BY THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA ®

Sharon O. Flanery • Chair, Energy and Natural Resources Department • [email protected] THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT

steptoe-johnson.com

NADOA N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f D i v i s i o n O r d e r A n a l y s t s G R O W T H T H R O U G H E D U C T I O N

Volume MMXIX • No 3

www.NADOA.org

Contents Feature

NADOA 2019 Officers President Jason Lucas 1st Vice President Luanne Johnson, CDOA 2nd Vice Presiden t Lewis Box, CDOA Treasurer Jeff Kliewer, CDOA Corresponding Secretary Jennifer Lujano Recording Secretary Michelle Harris, CDOA The NADOA News Magazine is a quarterly publication of the National Association of Division

Articles

2019 Member Recognition.............................................. 4 Colorado - New Regulations........................................... 7 EPA Wastewater Management.......................................8 Legal Updates TX - Duhig Revisited in Perryman v Spartan.............9 KS - Rule Against Perpetuities..................................10 Unclaimed Property- Pennsylvania, North Dakota......12 OERB News.................................................................13 NADOA 46th Annual Institute Highlights...................20

In This

Issue

Order Analysts PO Box 44009 Denver CO 80201

President’s Corner. .................................................1 Decimal Points.......................................................2 NADOA New Address.............................................3 2020 Election Results..............................................3 Certification...........................................................5 Save the Date - 2020 Institute................................6 Condolences............................................................6 Interaction 2019 NALTA Conference. ..................................13 2019 Colorado NARO.......................................13 NADOA Denver Regional Seminar.......................14 Counterpart Connection.......................................15 New Members.......................................................19 2019 NADOA Board/Committee Chairs...............43 Calendar of Events. ..............................................45

Subscription: By membership to NADOA, at $75.00 per year. News Magazine Editor Rona L. Erickson, CDOA Kaiser-Francis Oil Company [email protected] 918.491.4319 Associate Editor

April Luedecke, CDOA [email protected]

Graphic Design Paul Beach

On the Cover: Bridge at Trinity Park Duck Pond, Courtesy of visitfortworth.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced/copied without written permission. Editorial disclaimer: The contents of this newsletter are intended for member use only and any other use without permission from the NADOA Board of Directors is strictly prohibited.Articles published herein represent the view of the authors; publication neither implies approval of the opinions expressed nor accuracy of the facts stated and NADOA accepts no liability for misprints.

President’s

Corner

Jason Lucas 2019 NADOA President

What a quick year!

First and foremost, thank you so much for allowing me to serve as President of NADOA. It was truly an honor. We have a wonderful organization. You are going to be in truly remarkable hands with Luanne taking over the Presidency. (then slightly less remarkable but….competent(?) hands with Lewis the following year, maybe). We had a wonderful Institute because of the amazing work of Stephanie Moore and Michelle Lawton. They were irreplaceable to me. Everyone did amazing work to help bring us an event that was very successful. NADOA membership counts 1244 people this year. This represents an increase of 150 new members. We had a very successful Institute. It was our largest Institute in Five years. 404 attendees saw 20 speakers and attended 22 classes at Institute. Our Topgolf tournament was a huge success with 68 people attending on Wednesday. We couldn’t have done any of it without our awesome membership. Thank You Thank You Thank You!!!

Jason Lucas

1

G r o w t h T h r o u g h E d u c a t i o n - J u l y / A u g u s t / S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 9

NADOA

Better together.

Decimal Points

We’re integrating industry leading land and accounting systems to deliver the best in class field-to-finance solution.

April Luedecke, CDOA Associate Editor

Rona Erickson, CDOA Editor

Regional Reporters

ABADOA

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC [email protected] Donna King, CDOA [email protected]

BOLO

CAPDOA

VENDORS

CUSTOMERS

OWNERS

DADOA

Sharon Siemer, CDOA

NAME RECORDS

[email protected]

LESSEES

LEASE COST CENTER

DALWORTH Lewis Box, CDOA

[email protected]

LEASES

INVOICES

HADOA

Dale Bender, CDOA [email protected]

PAYMENTS

ACCOUNTSPAYABLE

ACCOUNTSRECEIVABLE

MAADOA

Angie Coady, CDOA

PAYMENTSTATUSUPDATES COMMON IDsONLESSEES+OWNERS

[email protected]

PBADOA

Nicki Scoggins

[email protected]

SADOA

Jane Green, CDOA

Contact us today to learn more! Call 1.833.369.7092 Email [email protected]

[email protected]

Arkansas

Jackie Clotfelter, CDOA [email protected]

North Dakota Kimberly A. Backman

[email protected]

New Mexico

Zachary P. Oliva

[email protected]

www.ilandman.com

Louisiana

2

N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f D i v i s i o n O r d e r A n a l y s t s

If you have a suggestion for someone to act as a Regional Reporter to help NADOA keep abreast of current legislation and legal issues for your region, please submit the name or the name of the firm.

Fourth Quarter........................ November 8 2019 NADOA Article Deadline

NADOA has a new address Effective June 15, 2019 NADOA PO BOX 1656 Palm Harbor, FL 34682

5

2020 Election Results President. ...............................Luanne Johnson, CDOA 1st VP............................................. Lewis Box, CDOA 2nd VP................................................ Michele Lawton Treasurer. ............................................. Jennifer Kegans Corresponding Secretary. ........Michelle Harris, CDOA Recording Secretary................ Vicki Danielson, CDOA Board Advisor. ............................................Jason Lucas Directors (chosen by the local associations): CAPDOA. ................................. Valerie Wible, CDOA DADOA DALWORTH HADOA...................................................Victoria Frey PBADOA SADOA. ...................................................Ida Lemaster

A big “Thank you” to the Teller’s Committee for verifying the election results. Ida Lemaster, Judy Moreland, Betty Davidson and Lisa Buffaloe served on the Teller’s Committee, chaired by Cheryl Hampton.

3

G r o w t h T h r o u g h E d u c a t i o n - J u l y / A u g u s t / S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 9

2019 Membership Recognition Awards

Each year during Institute NADOA recognizes a few outstanding members for their contributions to the Association throughout the year. This year NADOA had two very deserving recipients.

Interaction Award

Noemi Peralta, CPLTA Our 2019 Interaction Award is presented to Noemi Peralta. Since joining NADOA, her many contributions to this organization have been ongoing. Not only has she provided expert photography and slideshows, but her management of speaker presentations, her service on various committees, including Institute Chair and President of NADOA, would easily give one the notion that Noemi is unstoppable. Noemi has been an active member of PBADOA and had served continuously on the NADOA Board from 2006 - 2012. The overwhelming success of several NADOA

Institutes would not have been if she hadn’t stepped up to perform above and beyond expectations. One person who nominated Noemi states the following: “When she first became involved, I thought “this woman is so shy” and I underestimated her many talents. I am blessed to have crossed paths with this woman and forever thankful to call her my friend.” Our heart-felt congratulations to you, Noemi.

Ellis Rudy Memorial Lifetime Achievement Award LuAnn Sharp, CDOA

The 2019 Ellis Rudy Memorial Lifetime Achievement Award is presented to LuAnn Sharp. LuAnn has served on the NADOA board in several capacities beginning in 1994 and was our President in 1999. She has volunteered on various committees over the years. As Division Order Supervisor at XTO Energy/Exxon, she has directed a team of several experienced analysts. LuAnn has been a mentor, giving training on the proper knowledge, skills and common sense decision-making required to develop one into a successful Division Order Analyst. LuAnn has been in the industry 30+ years and is

dedicated to achieving her personal goals while leading others to meet theirs. LuAnn says, “I am so humbled and honored to have received the Ellis Rudy Memorial Lifetime Achievement Award this year and just don’t have the words to say how appreciative I am. It is amazing to be the recipient knowing that this is the first year for the award to be named after Ellis because I loved him so much. I never thought that I had accomplished enough to be in the same circle as some of the previous recipients of the lifetime achievement award and here it is with my name on it, sitting on my desk! Thank you, thank you!!” We extend sincere congratulations to you, LuAnn.

4

N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f D i v i s i o n O r d e r A n a l y s t s

CANDIDATES FOR CERTIFICATION Publication of the following “Certified Division Order Analyst” applicant(s) fulfills the requirement as stated in the Voluntary Certification Policy, III C.2 which states: “… applicant’s name will be published in the NADOA Newsletter or other official publication of NADOA.” This allows the NADOA membership an opportunity to present objections to the certification of the applicant. Any objection to the certification of the applicant must be in writing and signed by a NADOA member or non-member who qualifies his knowledge and objection of the applicant. All such letters will be considered confidential and must be received by the NADOA Certification Committee at the following address within thirty (30) days following the last day of the month in which the Newsletter or other official publication of NADOA was published: NADOA Certification Committee P O Box 44009 Denver CO 80201 If the objection warrants denial of the certification or temporary withholding of certification, the applicant will be notified by Certified Mail.

CANDIDATES FOR RECERTIFICATION

Keletha Brown – Plano, TX Barbara Davis – Fort Worth, TX Dalton Briggs Donaldson – Midland, TX David Elliott – Houston, TX Roxanne Heath – Oklahoma City, OK April Hubbard – Oklahoma City, OK Randolph Keeney – Houston, TX Jamie Nicole Baker – Fort Worth, TX Megan Bowers – Fort Worth, TX Annette Boyd – Tulsa, OK Nicholas Brewer – Houston, TX Erika De La Cruz – Dallas, TX Daniel Dovalina – Denver, CO Evan Michael Hanes – Houston, TX Sarah S Ivey – Houston, TX Tyler D. Lundquist – Warrendale, PA

Teresa Offutt – Ignacio, CO Amy Smith – Oklahoma City, OK Shirley Smith – Snyder, TX Albert Studer – Corpus Christi, TX Valerie Wible – Oklahoma City, OK Amanda Worden – Houston, TX Terri Zurowski – The Woodlands, TX

CANDIDATES FOR CERTIFICATION

Tara Miller – Tulsa, OK LaKishea Miller– Tulsa, OK Cyrus Perkins – Houston, TX Heather SaBell – Tulsa, OK Melinda Smith – Tulsa, OK Kacie Tapanila – Houston, TX Myriaya Taylor – Houston, TX Stanley Vargas – Littleton, CO Britney Voelkel – Houston, TX

Congratulations to the following new CDOA!!

Brandon Wallace – Dallas, TX

5

G r o w t h T h r o u g h E d u c a t i o n - J u l y / A u g u s t / S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 9

Our deepest sympathies to Carol’s family and friends. Carol Gresham Carol Ann Kughn Gresham, 64, of Wharton, Texas, passed away on Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at her residence.

 Carol was born in Wharton, Texas on November 16, 1954, to the late Jake William and Adeline T. Klatt Kughn.  She was raised in the Wharton area and graduated from Wharton High School with the class of 1972.  She married John Mark Gresham on August 30, 1996 in Wharton TX. Carol worked at Security Bank and Trust for many years before becoming the manager of Wharton Country Club.  Carol was also employed with Gresham Royalties for many years.  She was known as fun loving, a talented artist, who loved travel and being with her family.  In addition to her parents, she was preceded in death by her sister, Cathy Cartwright. Carol was a long time member and supporter of NADOA as well as an active member of HADOA. She served as HADOA 2nd Vice President in 2004, 1st Vice President in 2005 and President in 2006. Carol is survived by her husband, Mark Gresham of Wharton, daughters, Jennifer Schulz of Moulton, Lori Schulz of El Campo, and Amy Gresham of Wharton, grandchildren, Jacob William Schulz, Jessica JoAnn Hart, Julie Marie Hart, Kevin Joseph Krpec, Gavin Wayne Krpec and Shane Tyler Ryan, along with great grandchildren, Colby William Schulz, Terese Ann Krpec and Jackson Joseph Krpec.

6

N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f D i v i s i o n O r d e r A n a l y s t s

Adams County, CO approves new oil & gas regulations Source Oil & Gas 360 Newsletter 9/3/19

Colorado

After a six-month moratorium on new oil and gas applications, Adams County Commissioners voted to approve updated oil and gas regulations Tuesday afternoon, which include the addition of 1,000-foot setbacks from occupied buildings. The goal of the regulations, according to meeting documents, was to bring the county in line with SB 181, which gave counties more control in regulating oil and gas. The bill prompted several counties to place a moratorium on permits for new oil and gas development earlier this year while county staff worked to review how the changes would impact their regulation of oil and gas. Adams County’s regulations, according to meeting documents, may address land use, location and siting, water quality and source, air emissions and air quality, nuisance hazards like noise and dust, reclamation procedures and financial securities and insurance. “Since counties and cities have been given authority over oil and gas development, our staff has been hard at work

creating a set of regulations that is fair to the industry but also provides for the safety of our residents,” said Steve O’Dorisio, board chair, in a news release from the county. “It’s a tough line to toe, but we think these regulations balance the interests of all parties involved.” The Colorado Petroleum Council and Colorado Oil and Gas Association released statements shortly after the decision, saying the revisions to the county’s regulations “exceed (the) scope of (the) new state law” and are “unreasonable.” “We appreciate Adams County’s consideration and removal of some of the more egregious standards that had originally been proposed, and look forward to continuing discussions in the weeks and months ahead,” said Lynn Granger, executive director of the Colorado Petroleum Council, in the release. “We do, however, have deep concerns with the code as approved today, and believe that many of the provisions contained within these new rules and regulations will significantly hinder future natural gas and oil development within the county.”

7

G r o w t h T h r o u g h E d u c a t i o n - J u l y / A u g u s t / S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 9

EPA Sought Public Input On Draft Study Of Oil And Gas Extraction Wastewater Management

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking public input on a draft study that takes a holistic look at how the agency, states, tribes and others view the current state of regulation and management of wastewater from the oil and gas industry and provides insight into how this wastewater might be returned to beneficial use in the water cycle. “EPA’s draft study leverages the expertise of states, industry, and others in determining the opportunities and challenges surrounding the beneficial reuse of wastewater from the oil and gas sector,” said EPA Office of Water Assistant Administrator David Ross. “EPA looks forward to continued public engagement regarding practical, environmentally-sound approaches to encouraging greater reuse and more holistic management of this water.” “In an arid state like Utah, no potential source of water can be ignored,” said Utah Department of Environmental Quality Executive Director Alan Matheson. “We appreciate the valuable information EPA has compiled in this study and commit to work with EPA, states, and stakeholders to address the water quantity and quality challenges associated with produced water.” “Wyoming has long recognized the importance of beneficial reuse of produced water from the oil and gas sector through implementation of sound practices that are protective of water quality standards,” said Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WY DEQ) Director Todd Parfitt. “In particular, beneficial reuse of produced water provides significant benefit to wildlife, agriculture, and riparian habitat. WY DEQ looks forward to working with EPA and states in assessing and evaluating options for all produced water management opportunities.” In May 2018, EPA announced the initiation of a Study of Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewater Management. The agency conducted a robust outreach effort to gather input from state, tribal, industrial, academic, environmental, public health and other entities for the study. This included meeting with individual entities, accepting written input through a public docket on regulations.gov, and hosting a national public meeting in October 2018 to report on what EPA had learned to date and to provide

stakeholders an additional opportunity to provide input. The draft Study of Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewater Management was developed using the feedback the agency received from these engagements and comments submitted to the public docket. Many entities expressed support for increasing opportunities for discharge of oil and gas extraction wastewater to surface waters—especially where these wastewaters could address critical water resource needs. Some entities expressed concern that discharges to surface waters may, at least at this time, potentially impact the environment. EPA will accept input on the draft study until July 1, 2019. Interested parties may email their input to oil-and- [email protected]. After consideration of the feedback received, the agency will finalize the study in summer 2019. EPA will determine at that time what, if any, future agency actions are appropriate to encourage the beneficial reuse of oil and gas extraction wastewater under the Clean Water Act; this could include regulatory and/or non- regulatory approaches. For more information on the draft study, visit EPA’s website at: www.epa.gov/eg/study-oil-and-gas-extraction- wastewater-management Background Large volumes of wastewater are generated from both conventional and unconventional oil and gas extraction at onshore facilities and projections show that these volumes will likely increase significantly with expanded production activity and enhanced drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques. Currently, most of this wastewater is managed by disposing of it using a practice known as deep underground injection, where that water can no longer be accessed or used. The limits of injection are evident in some areas and new approaches are becoming necessary. Some states and stakeholders have questioned whether it makes sense to continue to waste this water, particularly in water scarce areas of the country, and what steps would be necessary to treat and renew it for other purposes.

SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

8

N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f D i v i s i o n O r d e r A n a l y s t s

Legal

Update

These materials reflect only the personal views of the author and are not individualized legal advice. It is understood that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these

materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation.  Thus, the author and their law firm cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with the author or their law firm. While every attempt was made to insure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed.

Duhig Revisited – Perryman v. Spartan Tex. Six Capital Partners, Ltd.

Texas

Title examination is typically characterized by a series of deeds and conveyances, which—unsurprisingly—do not convey property and/or interests in a neat, uniform fashion.  To eliminate some of this confusion in the context of over-conveyances, the Texas Supreme Court established the Duhig doctrine.  Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co., 144 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. 1940).  The Duhig doctrine holds that where full effect cannot be given to the granted interest and the reserved interest, the grantor will be stopped, and the courts will give priority to the granted interest until the granted interest has been fully satisfied.  If the granted interest cannot be fully satisfied, then the grantee has a cause of action for breach of warranty.  Id. at 879-80. In Perryman v. Spartan Tex. Six Capital Partners, Ltd., 546 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. 2018), the Texas Supreme Court revisited the Duhig doctrine and ultimately rejected its applicability to the conveyances at issue.  Perryman involved a chain of eight separate real-property deeds, the first of which was executed in 1977, when Ben Perryman conveyed property to his son and daughter- in-law, Gary and Nancy Perryman.  546 S.W.3d 110 at 113.  The deed conveyed to Gary and Nancy a parcel of land referred to as the “First Tract,” “LESS, SAVE AND EXCEPT an undivided one-half (1/2) of all royalties from the production of oil, gas and/or other minerals that may be produced from the above described premises which are now owned by Grantor.”  Id. at 113-14 (emphasis added). As a result of the deed and in light of the fact that Ben owned all of the royalties, minerals, and premises at the

time of the conveyance, Ben retained 1/2 of the royalty interests in the First Tract, and Gary and Nancy owned all of the surface and mineral interests and the other 1/2 of the royalty interest in the First Tract.  Id. at 114.  In a series of seven more deeds all containing warranties, the First Tract was conveyed to different entities, with several deeds failing to disclose the existing royalty interest ownership. executed, with respect to the “less, save and except” clauses present in the first four deeds.  The trial court construed the language as reserving for the grantor 1/2 of all the royalties which were then owned by the grantor, thus eliminating any Duhig concern.  Id. at 113.  On the other hand, the court of appeals held that the deeds in this case “purported to grant title to the land subject to a 1/2 royalty interest in the described property.”  Id. at 118.  The court of appeals concluded that, because the deeds made “no mention” of the “previously excepted” royalty interests, and yet provided general warranties covering all the title purportedly conveyed, the grantors breached their warranties and thus were “estopped from claiming a royalty interest in the subject property under the Duhig doctrine.”  Id. The Texas Supreme Court, however, did not apply the Duhig doctrine.  Id. at 119.  The Texas Supreme Court explained that “the ‘less, save and except’ clause created an exception from the grant, not a reservation for the grantor.”  Id.  The “deeds conveyed the entire property interest ‘less, save and except’ a 1/2 royalty interest, The dispute focused on the ownership of the royalty interests after the seven subsequent deeds were

9

G r o w t h T h r o u g h E d u c a t i o n - J u l y / A u g u s t / S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 9

and [] contained no language purporting to ‘reserve’ that excepted interest for or unto the grantors.”  Id.  Thus, the deeds did not purport to both convey and reserve unto the grantors more than the grantors owned.  As a result, the seven subsequent deeds were not over-conveyances requiring application of the Duhig doctrine.  Id. at 119- 120.

the Duhig doctrine.  When the deed language creates an exception of an interest from the overall grant, rather than a reservation of an interest for the grantor, the deed will not create a Duhig problem.  When interpreting a deed, it is important to pay close attention to the granted interest and ensure whether any additional interests have been either excepted from that grant or reserved for the grantor.

Perryman is significant because it limits the application of

R.A.P. Battle: The Kansas Supreme Court Clips the Rule Against Perpetuities

Kansas

Perpetuities (“USRAP”), which applies to non-vested property interests.  Under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 59-3401, a non-vested property interest is valid unless it is certain to vest or terminate no later than 21 years after the death of an individual then alive when the interest was created (or within 90 years).  In other words, an interest violates the Rule if a hypothetical situation can be posed in which the interest will vest later than lives in being plus 21 years.  See In re Estate of Freeman, 404 P.2d 222 (Kan. 1965).  However, because the USRAP was not adopted until 1992, the Court applied the similar common law Rule to the 1967 Deeds. The Court began by noting that this was a case of first impression, and that it must decide the validity of the common practice of reserving a term interest in minerals.  It immediately voiced its concern that applying the Rule in this situation this would “voi[d] innumerable transfers of minerals and creating marketable title problems of epic proportions.” The Court then held that the future interest created in the 1967 Deeds could become possessory in the Grantees’ successors more than 21 years after the death of the last of the Grantor or Grantees’ heirs and that it did, theoretically, violate the Rule.  However, the Court went on to explain that the interest originally created in the Grantees was not a reversion, but rather a present, vested interest to which the “Rule is simply inapplicable.”

In Jason Oil Co., LLC v. Littler, 2019 Kan. LEXIS 204 (Kan. 2019) Kansas joined a growing number of jurisdictions declining to apply the rule against perpetuities to defeasible term oil and gas interests. On December 30, 1967, Grantor executed two deeds in favor of separate Grantees conveying tracts of land in Rush County, Kansas (the “1967 Deeds”).  Each 1967 Deed excepted the mineral estate “for a period of 20 years or as long thereafter as oil and/or gas and/or other minerals may be produced.”  Upon the expiration of 20 years, no drilling operations had been conducted on the lands and no oil and gas had been produced from either tract.  Ostensibly, the term interest expired and the excepted minerals became vested in the Grantees’ successors. In 2016, Jason Oil Co. took oil and gas leases from the Grantees’ successors.  The Grantor’s heirs challenged the validity of said leases alleging that the 1967 Deeds violated the rule against perpetuities (the “Rule”), and were thus void ab initio.  The Grantor’s heirs argued that the exception created a fee simple determinable in the minerals, and that the Grantees’ successors’ interests were “springing executory interest” that were voided by the Rule.  The Grantor’s heirs filed a suit to quiet their title to the minerals, which was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court.

Kansas has adopted the Uniform Statutory Rule Against

10

N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f D i v i s i o n O r d e r A n a l y s t s

About the Authors:

The Court did not mince words in dispensing with the Grantor’s heirs’ arguments, stating that because there is no binding precedent, it was “free to decide if the Rule should apply” in this context.  It summarily dismissed the Grantor’s heirs’ “quibble” that the deeds created an exception as opposed to a reservation or the “legal fiction” of a grant and re-grant theory.  The Court further rejected the Grantor’s heirs’ plea for a “remorseless” application of the Rule. Instead, the Court looked to the underlying purpose of the Rule, which is to avoid fettering real property with future interests dependent upon unduly remote contingencies.  It also underscored the fact that the Rule originally developed to prevent the practice of tying up family properties for generations. The Court ultimately concluded that in the arena of term oil and gas interests, the Rule amounts to a “nonsensical act of legal formalism.”  Applying the Rule would result in the Grantor’s Heirs holding the mineral interests in the real estate in perpetuity, ironically frustrating alienability and the basic premise of the Rule.  The key takeaway from Jason Oil Co., LLC v. Littler is that where a grantor creates a defeasible term- plus-production mineral interest by exception, leaving a future interest in an ascertainable grantee, the future interest in minerals is exempt from the Rule. Kansas has joined the growing number of states that are tempering the rule against perpetuities and declining to apply it in the context of term oil and gas interests.  This is a comforting trend for practitioners as many leases, deeds and assignments are built around the core concept of a primary term of years and a secondary term lasting “as long thereafter as oil and gas are produced in paying quantities.”  It is also noteworthy that, in reaching its decision, the Court found particularly persuasive the recent Texas case of ConocoPhillips Co. v. Koopman, 547 S.W.3d 858 (Tex. 2018), which holds that the common law rule against perpetuities did not invalidate a future interest in a term NPRI, even though the grantees’ springing executory interest technically violated the Rule, because the future interest was certain to vest and did not interfere with the Rule’s purpose.

Eli Kiefaber Eli Kiefaber is a partner with Kiefaber & Oliva LLP.  Eli focuses his practice on oil and gas matters, including acquisition and divestiture of oil and gas assets, title opinions, joint

operating agreements, federal leases, pooling and unitization issues. Eli is licensed to practice law in Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado and Ohio, is a regular speaker on issues relating to the development of unconventional shale plays and has given a variety of presentations regarding legal issues relating to oil and gas development.  Eli earned his B.A from Kenyon College and his J.D., with honors, from Marquette University Law School.

Zachary Oliva Zachary Oliva is a partner with Kiefaber & Oliva LLP.  Zack focuses his practice on energy and corporate law.  He regularly

assists clients in the drafting of oil and gas title opinions, purchase and sale agreements and contract interpretation.  Additionally, he assists clients with the negotiation, drafting and review of business formations, contracts and service agreements.  Zack earned his B.A. from The Ohio State University and his J.D. from Capital University Law School.  He is licensed to practice in New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.

4865 Ward Road, Suite 200 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033

11

G r o w t h T h r o u g h E d u c a t i o n - J u l y / A u g u s t / S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 9

Unclaimed

Property 2019 Unclaimed Property Reporting

Pennsylvania

the beneficiary cannot be located for a period of three (3) years following the death of the owner and that is not subject to a mandatory distribution requirement; or • An individual retirement account (including a retirement plan for self-employed individuals) of which the owner has attained seventy and one-half years of age and is not subject to a mandatory distribution requirement. Accordingly, until further notice, retirement accounts are to be reported only if either of the above requirements are satisfied.  It is Treasury’s objective to prevent the reporting of property that is not truly abandoned or unclaimed.  In so doing, Treasury notes its authority to exercise its discretion to refuse the acceptance of certain types of unclaimed property.  72 P.S. §1301.17.  For the upcoming 2019 Holder Report Year, Treasury requests all Holders to use the following revised Form AP-1, Report of Abandoned and Unclaimed Property Verification and Checklist, https://www.patreasury.gov/ pdf/unclaimed-property/AP-1.pdf.

In September 2016, in response to amendments made to the Commonwealth’s Disposition of Abandoned and Unclaimed Property Law, Treasury issued a Policy Guidance (https://www.patreasury.gov/pdf/unclaimed- property/Policy-Guidance-2016.pdf ) with a particular emphasis designed to ensure that IRAs and other types of retirement account owners would not be subject to negative tax treatment as a consequence of an escheatment of retirement-related assets to the Commonwealth.  This Guidance protects an account owner under the age of 59 ½, by preventing the reporting/distribution of certain retirement accounts which may otherwise be subjected to the Internal Revenue Code’s 10-percent additional tax for early distributions.  IRC §72(t)(2)(A)(i). The following is a restatement of the Policy Guidance, which remains in full force and effect: Treasury will neither demand nor accept any retirement account that is presumed abandoned and unclaimed, except as follows: • An individual retirement account (including a retirement plan for self-employed individuals) of which

North Dakota

Once again, it is time to begin preparing annual unclaimed property holder reports. 

47-30.1. (https://unclaimedproperty.nd.gov/app/holder- manuals)

North Dakota Unclaimed Property has a new website https://unclaimedproperty.nd.gov/ where you can find the holder reporting manual that will be able to answer frequently asked questions regarding deadline, remittance, reciprocity, safe boxes, due diligence and many other topics pursuant to North Dakota Century Code ch.

Additionally, pursuant to Chapter 85 of the North Dakota Administrative Code (https://www.legis.nd.gov/ information/ac>Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49

Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter