Examples Of Ambiguities In Spatially Limited Assignments

The August installment, Vertical Assignments, was a discussion of Plano Petroleum, LLC v. GHK Exploration, L.P., 250 P.3d (Okla. 2011) as an illustration of the various ways a Court could interpret an assignment once the Court concludes that the assignment was "ambiguous."

The take away? Try not to be ambiguous.

Assignments are contracts. As contracts, the accepted rule is that unless the terms are ambiguous, Courts will limit themselves to the "four corners" of the instrument to determine its meaning. However, if the Court concludes that the instrument is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence is allowed to determine the parties' intent and the result is seemingly anyone's guess.

There are very few cases interpreting spatially limited assignments from courts in states in the Marcellus/Utica or the Illinois Basin. It would, therefore, be presumptuous to posit hard and fast rules concerning such assignments or their interpretation in the event a court concludes that the