K & H Well Service, Inc. v. Tcina, Inc. and Tcina Holding Co., Ltd.

Summary

The Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed the enforceability and foreclosure of oil and gas well liens under 42 O.S. § 144. It held that Tcina, Inc., acting as an agent for disclosed leasehold owners, was not personally liable, but Tcina Holding Co., Ltd. was liable based on its recorded five-percent leasehold interest. The court also held that the lien statement substantially complied with statutory requirements and that K & H was entitled to foreclosure and an attorney-fee award against Tcina Holding Co., Ltd.

Holdings

1. Tcina, Inc. was not personally liable for the contract debt because it acted as an agent for disclosed leasehold owners and the record did not establish that it owned a leasehold interest in the liened property.
2. K & H was entitled to a money judgment against Tcina Holding Co., Ltd. because the company held a recorded leasehold interest and the existence and amount of the debt were undisputed.
3. K & H substantially complied with the statutory requirements for an oil and gas well lien, perfected the lien, and was entitled to foreclose it against Tcina Holding Co., Ltd.'s leasehold interest.
4. Unless the trial court finds that a mining partnership existed between Tcina Holding Co. and the other record leasehold owners, Tcina Holding Co. may be held liable only for five percent of the contracted-for charges.
5. K & H was the prevailing party against Tcina Holding Co. and was entitled to an attorney-fee award on that lien claim, while Tcina, Inc. was entitled to retain the fee award associated with defeating K & H's lien claim against it.

Questions Presented

1. Whether K & H was entitled to a money judgment against Tcina, Inc. or Tcina Holding Co., Ltd. for undisputed labor and services supplied under the well-work contract.
2. Whether Tcina Holding Co., Ltd.'s recorded five-percent leasehold interest subjected it to K & H's oil and gas well lien despite its unrecorded disclaimer and assignment.
3. Whether K & H's lien was perfected despite the lien statement's reference to the Fleet Osborn Gilcrease Unit in the property description.
4. Which parties were prevailing parties entitled to attorney fees under 42 O.S. § 176.
5. Whether the record established the extent of Tcina Holding Co., Ltd.'s liability or required further proceedings concerning a possible mining partnership.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded