Moore v. Pennsylvania Castle Energy Corp.

89 F.3d 791 (11th Cir. 1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Moore (P) owned the surface rights to land. P did not own any subsurface mineral rights. P’s predecessor in interest conveyed the severance deed title to all the minerals along with certain rights to use the surface land in the extraction of them. Castle (D) is the lessee of the subsurface mineral estate. D acquired the lease by assignment from TRW in 1990. TRW had the right to enter and make reasonable use of P’s land (Vines). D presented evidence that Alabama producers of coalbed methane often negotiated surface access and damage agreements with the surface estate owners. TRW made such an oral agreement with P that TRW would never drill more than 6 wells, only drill those on the map locations agreed upon, and would never drill a gas well in a fifty-acre field. These oral understandings were never reduced to writing. A proposed written contract was delivered. It gave P $10,000 for a perpetual easement with the right to drill the six wells. P expressed disagreement with a sentence that if additional easements were needed it would be remunerated at the rate of $600 per acre. They corrected this to read “remunerate ... at a rate to be negotiated per net acre.” The written agreement was then signed but it did not incorporate the original map nor did it mention any promise by TRW to drill just six wells, nor did it mention that TRW agreed not to drill in the 50-acre field. The agreement stated that TRW had the final decision as to location with respect to the four remaining wells. P and her son, who was present at the negotiations, testified that TRW repeated its oral assurances that it would only drill at sites located on the map and that it would not drill in the 50-acre field. After hearing the oral assurances, P signed. Supplemental deals were signed, but none mentioned the oral promises. TRW assigned its lease to D in 1992. D found out very quickly that P was not amenable to additional wells. No agreements were reached, and eventually, D just began constructing an access road and drill pad in the 50-acre field. P sued for breach of an oral contract and trespass. D removed the case to federal court. The court admitted evidence of the oral conversations between P and TRW over D’s objections. D also objected to the admission of the map into evidence. D moved for judgment as a matter of law. P got a jury verdict. D filed a 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law and in the alternative a 59 motion for a new trial or remittitur. The court summarily denied the post-judgment motions. D appealed.