The Eastland Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court judgment awarding damages to a surface estate owner who took it upon himself to bury a producer’s flow lines when the producer did not fully comply with a lease provision permitting the lessor to request pipeline burial.
Byrne Oil Company v. Jennifer Walraven, Individually and as Heir of Joe Walraven (No. 11-23-00157-CV; September 11, 2025) arose from a dispute over an oil and gas lease executed in 1982 on a tract of land in Eastland County. Byrne Oil was the successor-in-interest of lessee, whereas Walraven was successor-in-interest of the lessor. The lease provided that “[w]hen requested by lessor, lessee shall bury pipeline[s] below plow depth.” In 2016 Walraven purchases the surface of the leased tract and acquired a partial royalty interest. He sent a letter to Joe Byrne, Byrne Oil’s principal, requesting that Byrne bury its 10,000 feet of above-ground flowlines connecting the ten wells on the lease. Byrne Oil did not acknowledge the request and ignored repeated requests over the nest two years. Walraven issued an ultimatum that Byrne remove the lines, or he would do it himself by piling and burning them. Byrne Oil responded through an attorney with a letter suggesting that Walraven did not have the right to request that burial of the lines because he had only purchased the surface. Walraven’s attorney replied, pointing out the relevant provision in the lease and threatening to pursue legal action to recover the cost of removing the lines. Byrne Oil replied by filing suit in February 2019, seeking an injunction to prevent interference with the lines. Walraven counterclaimed for breach of contract and an injunction prohibiting Byrne from interfering with Walraven’s use of the land.
While the suit was pending, Byrne hired a contractor, Crowder Construction, to bury most of the lines. Shortly thereafter, Walraven took it upon himself to bury the rest in April 2021. Byrne protested, but the work continued and was completed. Walraven’s contractor billed him more than $60,000. In 2023 Byrne amended its pleading in the 2019 lawsuit to include a cause of action for trespass. It also asserted affirmative defenses to Walraven’s counterclaims. Walraven filed an amended counterpetition alleging negligence and gross negligence and asserting his right to recover his cost to bury the lines to cure the Byrne’s trespass and remedy Byrne’s breach of contract. After a bench trial, the trial court found that Byrne Oil failed and refused to bury the pipelines as requested and awarded Walraven his costs for burying the lines but not for an amount spent on cosmetic and other work not related to the lines. Byrne appealed.
In an opinion by Chief Justice Bailey, the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. Byrne argued that the trial court erred in awarding Walraven damages because Texas law does not permit the remedy of “unauthorized self-help trespass” on the dominant estate. It further asserted that the plain language of the lease limited Walraven’s remedies to the “judicial process,” and that Walraven was precluded from self-help remedy by long-standing tenets of oil and gas law. Observing that “[a]s the owner of the mineral estate, Byrne Oil had the implied right to use the surface as reasonably necessary to produce and remove minerals,” its use of the surface could still be limited by the lease. This lease did so by requiring the lessee to bury pipelines at the request of the lessor. Even so, the pipeline burial provision was “silent as to the remedies available to the lessor if the lessee breaches the [] provision.” In the absence of an express legal authority to use self-help to enforce the provision, the court turned to Walraven’s trespass claim, which, however, lacked the element of “interference with the plaintiff’s right to exclusive possession of their land” (emphasis in original). Instead, Byrne’s breach of the pipeline burial provision was “more akin to a nuisance rather than a trespass,” which “involves interference with the plaintiffs’ right to the use and enjoyment of their land” (emphasis in original). As to Byrne’s trespass claim, the court noted that the lease gave Byrne the right to lay pipelines to produce minerals, so it couldn’t commit a trespass in that regard. But “because of the existence of the pipeline burial provision, the case for establishing that Walraven committed a trespass with respect to the flow lines is not clear-cut…. Thus, this case essentially presents a situation of mutual interference with the other party’s property interest on the lease.”
How did the court resolve this problem? Observing that Walraven’s recovery in the judgment was for Byrne Oil’s breach of the lease, the question because whether self-help was a permissible remedy for breach of contract. But, as noted above, the nature of Walraven’s legal injury was interference with his use and enjoyment of the surface estate, “a property interest to which Walraven did not have exclusive possession as far as Byrne Oil is concerned.” Texas law recognizes that self-help abatement is an available remedy for private nuisance under circumstances in which there is no adequate time to pursue a judicial remedy (citing Prosser and Keeton On Torts § 89, at 641 (5th ed. 1984). This case, by contract, was pending for more than two years when Walraven resorted to self-help, giving him “adequate time and opportunity to seek a legal remedy by way of the judicial process … [] Walraven was precluded from using the remedy of self-help abatement to bury the remaining portions of the flow lines on the lease.” Texas oil and gas law supported this conclusion as well, since the lessee producer owns the dominant estate and “allowing the owner of the surface estate to move or relocate the lessee’s equipment has the potential for disturbing mineral production as well as creting an environmental risk in the event of an accident.” The court thus ruled in favor of Bryne on its claim that Walraven could not recover for his use of “an unwarranted self-help remedy.” It reversed $30,000 of the judgment for compensatory damages (attributable to burying the lines) but rendered judgment that Walraven recover $1,869.32, his costs to establish that he was permitted to enforce the lease.
The court further reversed Walraven’s award of $125,000 in attorney’s fees, since it reversed his primary recovery of compensable damages. It remanded this issue to the trial court for reconsideration in light of the significantly reduced judgment.
TCJL Intern Satchel Williams researched and prepared the first draft of this article.
