[SOLVED] Moore v. Bearkat Energy Partners, LLC Court

Moore v. Bearkat Energy Partners, LLC
Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco, 2018 WL 683754 (2018).
Background and Facts; Jason Lane hired Bearkat Energy Partners, LLC, to buy mineral leases in Leon County, Texas. Lane intended to package the leases to sell to other buyers. He provided the funding for Bearkat’s purchases, and when the leases were resold, Bearkat received a percentage of the profit. Without telling Lane, Bearkat hired Larry Moore to help acquire the leases. Moore and William Bramlett, Bearkat’s representative, signed an agreement providing that Moore would be compensated “for his assistance with securing oil, gas and other mineral leases in Leon County, Texas.” Lane did not sign the agreement. Later, Moore filed a suit in a Texas state court against Bearkat. He alleged that his efforts under the agreement resulted in the conveyance of numerous leases to the defendant but that he was not paid. Bearkat filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted, in part because it found that the parties’ agreement was too vague to be enforceable. Moore appealed.
In the Language of the Court
Al SCOGGINS, Justice.
Under the statute of frauds, certain promises and agreements are unenforceable unless they are in writing and signed by the person sought to be charged. Moreover, the statute of frauds requires that a memorandum of an agreement must be complete within itself in every material detail and contain all of the essential elements of the agreement so that the contract can be ascertained from the writings without resorting to oral testimony. [Emphasis added.] The statute of frauds applies to a promise or agreement to pay a commission for the sale or purchase of a mineral interest. Here, by virtue of his compensation agreement, Moore sought commissions for the sale of mineral interests by [Bearkat] to third parties. Therefore, the statute of frauds applies to Moore’s compensation agreement. The statute of frauds requires that the writing furnish the data to identify the property with reasonable certainty. If enough appears in the description so that a person familiar with the area can locate the premises with reasonable certainty, it is sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds.
Here, the compensation agreement does not contain within itself, or by reference to some other identified writing then in existence, a sufficient description of the properties Moore believes he should be compensated for based on his efforts in the leasing process. Rather, the compensation agreement merely refers to “oil, gas and other mineral leases in Leon County, Texas.” The compensation agreement does not provide any information regarding the size, shape, or boundaries of the land subject to the leases for which Moore was to be compensated. We do not believe that this language sufficiently describes the property in question such that a person familiar with the area could locate the premises that are the subject of the compensation agreement with reasonable certainty. And because we have concluded that Moore’s compensation agreement did not sufficiently describe the leases subject to the agreement, we hold that the agreement is void and unenforceable under the statute of frauds.
Decision and Remedy; A state intermediate appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Bearkat was not liable on the agreement to compensate Moore.
Critical Thinking
• Legal Environment: Could Moore have presented leases purportedly entered into as a result of his performance under the compensation agreement to provide a property description sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds? Why or why not?
• What If the Facts Were Different? Suppose that Moore had filed his suit against Lane instead of Bearkat and that the court had held the compensation agreement to be enforceable. Would Lane have been liable on the agreement? Explain.

Question: Moore v. Bearkat Energy Partners, LLC Court