Evelyn Tittizer, Individually and as Independent Executrix of the Estate of Louis Tittizer v. Union Gas Corporation

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that an oil and gas lease requiring the lessee to execute and record an instrument identifying a pooled unit did not authorize retroactive pooling. Accordingly, the pooled unit became effective upon recordation of the designation, and the landowner was not entitled to royalties for production before that date. The court also held that the lessee had sufficiently challenged the reasonableness of the landowner's attorney-fee award and remanded that issue to the court of appeals.

Holdings

1. The unambiguous lease authorized pooling only upon recordation of an instrument identifying the pooled unit and did not authorize a retroactive effective date. Tittizer was therefore not entitled to royalties for production between March 27, 2000 and August 7, 2000.
2. Union Gas was not estopped and did not invite the trial court's error by seeking a declaration that pooling was effective from the date of first production.
3. The court of appeals erred in holding that Union Gas failed to appeal Tittizer's attorneys' fee award. The point of error and supporting argument, construed liberally, adequately raised the challenge, and the issue was remanded for consideration of the fees' reasonableness.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the pooling clause authorized Union Gas to make the pooled unit effective retroactively from the date of first production rather than from the date the designation was recorded.
2. Whether Union Gas was estopped or barred by invited error from arguing on appeal that pooling became effective upon recordation after seeking a trial-court declaration concerning the earlier date.
3. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that Union Gas failed to appeal Tittizer's attorneys' fee award because the point of error referred to the Gislers while the supporting argument challenged Tittizer's fees.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded