habendum clause in Texas

2025“A lease’s habendum clause defines the mineral estate’s duration.” Anadarko, 94 S.W.3d at 554 .

2023Id. (noting a habendum clause’s use of the word “produce” means “producing in paying quantities”).

2017Id, The word “produce” in a habendum clause “is synonymous with the phrase ‘producing in paying quantities.’ ” Hydrocarbon Mgmt., Inc. v. Tracker Expl., Inc., 861 S.W.2d 427 , 432 n.4 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1993, no writ) (quoting Garcia v. King, 139 Tex. 578 , 164 S.W.2d 509, 511-12 (1942)).

2017Id, The word “produce” in a habendum clause “is synonymous with the phrase ‘producing in paying quantities.’ ” Hydrocarbon Mgmt., Inc. v. Tracker Expl., Inc., 861 S.W.2d 427 , 432 n.4 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1993, no writ) (quoting Garcia v. King, 139 Tex. 578 , 164 S.W.2d 509, 511-12 (1942)).

2026As is typical, the lease’s habendum clause defines the duration of the lease by dividing it into a primary term that ends on a date certain followed by a secondary term that continues as long as oil or gas is being “produced in paying quantities from the Leased Premises or lands pooled therewith[.]” See Discovery Operating, Inc., 554 S.W.3d at 597 (discussing a habendum clause).

2019Co., LLC, 526 S.W.3d at 394 (citing Thompson, 94 S.W.3d at 554 ; see also Endeavor Energy Res., L.P., 554 S.W.3d at 597 (because a mineral lease is a creature of contract, parties may modify the effect of a habendum clause by including other provisions).

2017“A lease’s habendum clause defines the mineral estate’s duration.” Id.

2017“Although the habendum clause generally controls the mineral estate’s duration, other clauses may extend the habendum clause’s term.” Thompson, 94 S.W.3d at 554 (citing Southland Royalty, 496 S.W.2d at 552 ).

2022The habendum clause here, however, does not use the word “produced.” It allows the lease to continue past the primary term “as long thereafter as operations, as hereinafter defined, are conducted.” And “operations” include “production of 4 oil, gas, sulphur or other mineral, whether or not in paying quantities.” Under the plain terms of the lease and undisputed evidence in this case, the lease has not terminated because the well has produced gas “whether or not in paying quantities.” See Ladd Petroleum Corp. v. Eagle Oil & Gas Co., 695 S.W.2d 99, 107 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1985, writ ref’d n.r.

2015See Ladd Petroleum Corp., 695 S.W.2d at 107 ; Whelan, 274 S.W.2d at 128 .

2023Id. “[T]hough the habendum clause in a lease generally controls the mineral estate’s duration, other clauses may be considered in determining the habendum clause’s term.” Id.

2023Id. “[T]hough the habendum clause in a lease generally controls the mineral estate’s duration, other clauses may be considered in determining the habendum clause’s term.” Id.

2025Id. at 81–85.

2023See Cimarex, 574 S.W.3d at 93 .

2001For instance, in Greer v. Salmon, 82 N.M. 245 , 479 P.2d 294 (1970), the court had before it an habendum clause containing the words “and as long thereafter as oil and gas ... is produced or producible by the lessee....” Id. at 295 (emphasis in original).

2001For instance, in Greer v. Salmon, 82 N.M. 245 , 479 P.2d 294 (1970), the court had before it an habendum clause containing the words “and as long thereafter as oil and gas ... is produced or producible by the lessee....” Id. at 295 (emphasis in original).

2026See Neale, 252 S.W.2d at 453 (holding “[t]o have and to hold the same unto the said Trustees, . . . their successors and assigns, forever free of all encumbrances, including telephone, telegraph and transmission lines” “evidence[s] the intention on the part of the grantor to convey the title to the tract or strip of land”); Hidalgo Cnty., 443 S.W.2d at 85–86 (“The habendum clause refers to the land and premises and specifically states ‘TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above described land and premises together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereunto in any wise belonging * * * fore

2026See Neale, 252 S.W.2d at 453 (holding “[t]o have and to hold the same unto the said Trustees, . . . their successors and assigns, forever free of all encumbrances, including telephone, telegraph and transmission lines” “evidence[s] the intention on the part of the grantor to convey the title to the tract or strip of land”); Hidalgo Cnty., 443 S.W.2d at 85–86 (“The habendum clause refers to the land and premises and specifically states ‘TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above described land and premises together with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereunto in any wise belonging * * * fore

2017Such an interpretation of the Easement violates one of the most basic rules. of contract construction—it fails to give .effect to an entire clause, the habendum clause. 6 See, e.g., Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex. 1996) (recognizing presumption that parties to a contract intend every clause to have effect); Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983) (recognizing rule of construction that entire contract will be harmonized to give effect to all provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered meaningless).

1999Thus, we eschew such an interpretation of the provision, read the habendum clause in harmony with the entire lease including the force majeure clause, see Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex.1996) (stating that the parties’ intent is determined by perusing the entire agreement so the effect one part of the agreement has on another can be assessed); Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex.1983) (stating that provisions of a contract cannot be isolated and then interpreted as isolated), and conclude that the force majeure clause has the effect of extending the habe

2017Such an interpretation of the Easement violates one of the most basic rules. of contract construction—it fails to give .effect to an entire clause, the habendum clause. 6 See, e.g., Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex. 1996) (recognizing presumption that parties to a contract intend every clause to have effect); Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983) (recognizing rule of construction that entire contract will be harmonized to give effect to all provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered meaningless).

1999Thus, we eschew such an interpretation of the provision, read the habendum clause in harmony with the entire lease including the force majeure clause, see Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex.1996) (stating that the parties’ intent is determined by perusing the entire agreement so the effect one part of the agreement has on another can be assessed); Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex.1983) (stating that provisions of a contract cannot be isolated and then interpreted as isolated), and conclude that the force majeure clause has the effect of extending the habe

2015Fox v. Thoreson, controls the mineral estate's duration, other clauses 398 S.W.2d 88, 92 (Tex.1966).

2003See Fox, 398 S.W.2d at 92 .

2014Ridge Oil Co., Inc. v. Guinn Invs., Inc., 148 S.W.3d 143, 149 (Tex.2004).

2014Ridge Oil Co., Inc. v. Guinn Invs., Inc., 148 S.W.3d 143, 149 (Tex. 2004).

2013See Walchshauser v. Hyde, 890 S.W.2d 171, 174 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994, writ denied); McDaniel v. Calvert, 875 S.W.2d 482, 484 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994, no writ) (transfer of dominant estate “automatically includes the [appurtenant] easement across the servient tenement’s land” regardless of whether easements are referenced in deed or not).

2013See Walchshauser v. Hyde, 890 S.W.2d 171, 174 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, writ denied); McDaniel v. Calvert, 875 S.W.2d 482, 484 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, no writ) (transfer of dominant estate “automatically includes the [appurtenant] easement across the servient tenement’s land” regardless of whether easements are referenced in deed or not).

2013See Walchshauser v. Hyde, 890 S.W.2d 171, 174 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994, writ denied); McDaniel v. Calvert, 875 S.W.2d 482, 484 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1994, no writ) (transfer of dominant estate “automatically includes the [appurtenant] easement across the servient tenement’s land” regardless of whether easements are referenced in deed or not).

2013See Walchshauser v. Hyde, 890 S.W.2d 171, 174 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, writ denied); McDaniel v. Calvert, 875 S.W.2d 482, 484 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994, no writ) (transfer of dominant estate “automatically includes the [appurtenant] easement across the servient tenement’s land” regardless of whether easements are referenced in deed or not).

2000Kincaid v. Gulf Oil Corp., 675 S.W.2d 250, 255 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

2000Kincaid v. Gulf Oil Corp., 675 S.W.2d 250, 255 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

1992See Nafco Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Tartan Resources Corp., 522 S.W.2d 703, 708 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1975, writ ref d n.r.e.) (holding that the habendum clause operated independently upon each tract and that production on one 160-acre tract would not maintain the lease on another 160-acre tract); Hunt Oil Co. v. Dishman, 352 S.W.2d 760, 764 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1961, writ ref d n.r.e.) (holding that, except for 40 acres allotted to oil production, the determinable fee on a 320-acre tract allotted to gas production was forfeited when a gas well was reclassified as an oil well and no reworkin

1975See Hunt Oil Company v. Dishman, 352 S.W.2d 760 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1961, writ ref’d n. r. e.).

2022Thistle Creek’s reliance on any other case that included a similar purpose or diligence clause is unpersuasive because the habendum clause did not extend the leases based on production “whether or not in paying quantities.” See Hydrocarbon Mgmt., Inc. v. Tracker Expl., Inc., 861 S.W.2d 427, 432 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1993, no writ).

2021The lease provided that each “[s]uch unit acreage shall only be held by production.” “The word ‘produce’ in a habendum clause ‘is synonymous with the phrase “producing in paying quantities.”’” Red Deer, 526 S.W.3d at 394 (quoting 13 Hydrocarbon Mgmt., Inc. v. Tracker Expl., Inc., 861 S.W.2d 427 , 432 n.4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1993, no writ)). “‘Production in paying quantities’ means ‘the production is sufficient to pay the lessee a profit, even small, over the operating and marketing expenses, although the cost of drilling the well may never be repaid.’” Id. (quoting Tracker, 861 S.W.2d at 432 n

2014In Naf-co, the court held that the habendum clause, as modified by the retained acreage clause, operated independently upon each tract and that production on one 160-acre tract would not maintain the lease as to another 160-acre tract on which production had ceased. 522 S.W.2d at 707-08 .

2014In Nafco, the court held that the habendum clause, as modified by the retained acreage clause, operated independently upon each tract and that production on one 160-acre tract would not maintain the lease as to another 160-acre tract on which production had ceased. 522 S.W.2d at 707-08 .

2009The word “produced,” as used in the habendum clause in this lease, means “production in paying quantities.” Gulf Oil Corp., 337 S.W.2d at 269 ; Dreher v. Cassidy Ltd.

2009Gulf Oil Corp., 337 S.W.2d at 270 . 6 Although the lack of a market will not excuse the failure to produce during either the primary term or the secondary term of a lease of this nature and even though the habendum clause generally controls the duration of the lease, other provisions might extend the term provided for in the habendum clause.

2011A typical Texas mineral lease contains an habendum clause that defines the duration of the lease, typically providing a relatively short fixed term of years as the primary term and then a secondary term for “as long thereafter as oil, gas or other mineral is produced.” Id.; Grinnell, 137 S.W.3d at 714 .

2011The habendum clause defines 2 the duration of the lease, and it usually provides for a relatively short fixed term of years (the primary term) followed by a secondary term for “as long thereafter as oil, gas or other mineral is produced.” Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Thompson, 94 S.W.3d 550, 554 (Tex. 2002); Grinnell, 137 S.W.3d at 714 .

2021“Although the habendum clause generally controls the mineral estate’s duration, other clauses may extend the habendum clause’s term.” Id. (quoting Thompson, 94 S.W.3d at 554 ).

1992Pshigoda v. Texaco, Inc., 703 S.W.2d 416, 418 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Ballan-fonte v. Kimbell, 373 S.W.2d 119, 120-21 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1963, writ ref’d n.r.e.); see Clifton v. Koontz, 160 Tex. 82 , 325 S.W.2d 684, 691 (1959).