Plaintiffs, lessors, file a breach of contract claim when defendants, lessees, refuse to pay an additional lease bonus under a most favored nations clause (MFNC) in the parties' mineral lease agreement. The MFNC sets forth a bonus to be paid to lessors if lessees acquire another lease within two miles of their present lease; this is classified as a third party lease in the contract. However, a lease would not be classified as a third party lease if it were ". . .a lease covering a tract of land of less than 20 acres." Defendants subsequently acquire an oil lease covering 4000 acres on various non-contiguous tracts (the Frierson Lease). Part of this lease is a 7.36 acre tract of which falls within the 2 mile Geographic Area described in the MFNC. Plaintiffs seek payment of the additional lease bonus and file suit when this demand is refused. Defendants argues in a cross motion for summary judgment that the 7.36 acre tract is excluded from the third party lease requirements because the MFNC clearly and unambiguously excludes "a lease covering a tract of land of less than 20 acres." The trial court rejects this argument and rules in favor of plaintiffs. Held: affirmed. The purpose of contract interpretation is to determine the common intent of the parties. Here, the intent of the MFNC is shown by its clear and explicit language, which states that a lease within the geographic area that covers less than 20 acres will be considered a third party lease if the lessor enters into another lease with the lessee and together the leases cover 20 acres or more. The Court reasons that if defendant's argument was used, a lease covering two noncontiguous tracts of 19 and 141 acres in the Geographic area would not be considered a third party lease. The triggering lease covered over 4000 acres on multiple tracts. Under the court's interpretation, this is not what the parties intended to be a lease covering a tract of less than 20 acres when drafting the MFNC.
展开▼
