• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

liskow_lewis_white_new

future-focused

  • Team
  • Practices
  • Insights
  • Blogs
Blogs

Tightening the Timeline for Original Condition: First Circuit Denies Writ Applying Subsequent Purchaser Doctrine to Dismiss Claims Against a Mineral Servitude Owner

06.14.16 | 3 minute read

In the watershed Corbello[1] decision, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed a $33 million award—the cost to restore property valued at $108,000 to its “original condition” after it was damaged by oil and gas operations.  If Corbello pressed the accelerator on “legacy” litigation, Eagle Pipe tapped the brakes.

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in Eagle Pipe & Supply v. Amerada Hess Corp.[2]  held that a landowner does not have a claim for property damage that occurred before his ownership (absent an assignment or subrogation to that right from the seller).  As a practical consequence of Louisiana’s long oil heritage, many current landowners acquired their property long after oil and gas operations—and any attendant damages—first occurred.  Thus, the “subsequent purchaser doctrine” has become a key defense for mineral lessee defendants in legacy litigation. (For more information on how the subsequent purchaser doctrine has been applied in legacy cases, click here.)

Recently, the subsequent purchaser defense was applied to dismiss claims against a mineral servitude owner in Sterling Sugars, Inc., v. Amerada Hess Corporation, No. 100091, 17th JDC, Lafourche Parish. Article 22 of the Mineral Code states that a mineral servitude owner “is obligated, insofar as practicable, to restore the surface to its original condition at the earliest reasonable time.” The Sterling Sugars landowner, which acquired its property in 1998, argued that Article 22 obligated the mineral servitude owner to restore the property to its pre-operation condition.  Operations began in 1937; thus, the plaintiff’s claims would have required the servitude owner to repair alleged damage predating the landowner’s ownership by 60 years.

After the trial court applied the subsequent purchaser doctrine to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for pre-1998 damage against the mineral lessee, the mineral servitude owner filed its own motion for partial summary judgment arguing that the subsequent purchaser doctrine likewise applied to the plaintiff’s mineral servitude claims.  The trial court accepted the argument, and ruled that “all claims against the [mineral servitude owner] for damage that occurred prior to plaintiff’s acquisition of the property at issue, including claims for monetary relief or restoration, are DISMISSED with prejudice.”[3]

The plaintiff sought writs from the First Circuit Court of Appeal. Yesterday, (June 13, 2016), the First Circuit denied the writ “on the showing made.” Sterling Sugars Inc., v. Amerada Hess, et al., 2015-CW-1857 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/13/16). Thus, the writ denial supplies jurisprudential support that the subsequent purchaser defense applies to claims against mineral servitude owners, including claims for “original condition” restoration under Mineral Code article 22.  As applied in Sterling Sugars, the subsequent purchaser doctrine sets the condition to which a mineral servitude owner must restore encumbered property to the condition which existed when the current landowner purchased the property.

[1]           Corbello v. Iowa Prod., 2002-0826 (La. 2/25/03); 850 So.2d 686.

[2]           10-2267 (La. 10/25/11); 79 So. 3d 246.

[3]           Sterling Sugars Inc., v. Amerada Hess Corporation, No. 100091, 17th JDC (Judgment on PXP Gulf Coast LLC and PXP Louisiana LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on the Subsequent Purchaser Doctrine (November 25, 2015)).

Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the law firm of Liskow & Lewis, APLC (“Liskow & Lewis”) and the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice as to an identified problem or issue.  By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site.  The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.

Primary Sidebar

Related Team

  • Laura Springer Brown
  • Elizabeth S. Wheeler
Liskow & Lewis, APLC
Arrow Icon

future-focused

  • Baton Rouge
  • Houston
  • Lafayette
  • New Orleans
  • New York City
  • © 2026 Liskow & Lewis, APLC
  • Sitemap
  • Disclaimer
  • Employee Login
Site by
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
Cookie SettingsAccept All
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Team
  • Practices
  • Insights
  • Blogs
  • Offices
  • Pro Bono
  • About Us
  • Careers
  • DEI
  • The Energy Law Blog
  • Gulf Coast Business Law Blog
  • The Maritime Law Blog