留置权对租赁的强制从属:德州财产法第66章是否具有违宪追溯效力?

Michael P. Vargo
{"title":"留置权对租赁的强制从属:德州财产法第66章是否具有违宪追溯效力?","authors":"Michael P. Vargo","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2710208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2015, the Texas Legislature enacted a law which benefits oil and gas producers, but retroactively affects (and potentially harms) lenders. Chapter 66 of the Texas Property Code alters traditional expectations regarding the effects of foreclosures on oil and gas leases. Due to its impact on previously executed mortgages, the law could be deemed unconstitutional.Lenders that issue security interests often rely on foreclosure sales or future transactions to recover the balance of an unpaid obligation. Historically, a foreclosure terminated subsequently executed, or “junior,” encumbrances (such as mineral leases) that covered mortgaged property. Purchasers, who would then acquire a greater interest in the property, would ideally offer a higher price for it. In turn, lenders had a greater possibility of recovering their initial loan. However, as of January 1, 2016, Chapter 66 protects junior leases from termination by foreclosure, and retroactively applies to mortgages that were issued years earlier. Unfortunately, due to the recently volatile energy market, some junior leases may significantly decrease property values. Therefore, lenders that issued mortgages with the expectation that foreclosures would remove junior leases may be less likely to recoup their outstanding debt. This Article describes the nature of Chapter 66, and explores Texas jurisprudence surrounding retroactive laws. It then analyzes the statute under the Supreme Court of Texas’s 2010 Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal decision, and explains how a Texas court may find that Chapter 66 is unconstitutionally retroactive.","PeriodicalId":343955,"journal":{"name":"SRPN: Oil (Topic)","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Forced Subordinations of Liens to Leases: Is Texas Property Code Chapter 66 an Unconstitutionally Retroactive Law?\",\"authors\":\"Michael P. Vargo\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2710208\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 2015, the Texas Legislature enacted a law which benefits oil and gas producers, but retroactively affects (and potentially harms) lenders. Chapter 66 of the Texas Property Code alters traditional expectations regarding the effects of foreclosures on oil and gas leases. Due to its impact on previously executed mortgages, the law could be deemed unconstitutional.Lenders that issue security interests often rely on foreclosure sales or future transactions to recover the balance of an unpaid obligation. Historically, a foreclosure terminated subsequently executed, or “junior,” encumbrances (such as mineral leases) that covered mortgaged property. Purchasers, who would then acquire a greater interest in the property, would ideally offer a higher price for it. In turn, lenders had a greater possibility of recovering their initial loan. However, as of January 1, 2016, Chapter 66 protects junior leases from termination by foreclosure, and retroactively applies to mortgages that were issued years earlier. Unfortunately, due to the recently volatile energy market, some junior leases may significantly decrease property values. Therefore, lenders that issued mortgages with the expectation that foreclosures would remove junior leases may be less likely to recoup their outstanding debt. This Article describes the nature of Chapter 66, and explores Texas jurisprudence surrounding retroactive laws. It then analyzes the statute under the Supreme Court of Texas’s 2010 Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal decision, and explains how a Texas court may find that Chapter 66 is unconstitutionally retroactive.\",\"PeriodicalId\":343955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SRPN: Oil (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SRPN: Oil (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2710208\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SRPN: Oil (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2710208","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2015年,德克萨斯州立法机构颁布了一项有利于油气生产商的法律,但对贷款机构产生了追溯性影响(并可能造成损害)。《德州财产法》第66章改变了人们对止赎对油气租赁影响的传统预期。由于该法对先前执行的抵押贷款有影响,因此可能被视为违宪。发行担保权益的贷方通常依靠止赎出售或未来交易来收回未付债务的余额。从历史上看,取消抵押品赎回权的终止是随后执行的,或“初级的”产权负担(如矿产租赁),涵盖了抵押财产。买家会在房产中获得更大的利益,理想情况下,他们会给出更高的价格。反过来,贷款人收回初始贷款的可能性更大。然而,自2016年1月1日起,第66章保护初级租赁不因丧失抵押品赎回权而终止,并追溯适用于多年前发放的抵押贷款。不幸的是,由于最近能源市场的波动,一些初级租赁可能会显著降低房地产价值。因此,那些发放抵押贷款,并预期丧失抵押品赎回权将取消初级租约的贷款机构可能不太可能收回其未偿债务。本文描述了第66章的性质,并探讨了德克萨斯州围绕追溯法律的法理学。然后分析了2010年德克萨斯州最高法院对罗宾逊诉皇冠科克和印章案的判决,并解释了德克萨斯州法院如何发现第66章具有违宪追溯效力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Forced Subordinations of Liens to Leases: Is Texas Property Code Chapter 66 an Unconstitutionally Retroactive Law?
In 2015, the Texas Legislature enacted a law which benefits oil and gas producers, but retroactively affects (and potentially harms) lenders. Chapter 66 of the Texas Property Code alters traditional expectations regarding the effects of foreclosures on oil and gas leases. Due to its impact on previously executed mortgages, the law could be deemed unconstitutional.Lenders that issue security interests often rely on foreclosure sales or future transactions to recover the balance of an unpaid obligation. Historically, a foreclosure terminated subsequently executed, or “junior,” encumbrances (such as mineral leases) that covered mortgaged property. Purchasers, who would then acquire a greater interest in the property, would ideally offer a higher price for it. In turn, lenders had a greater possibility of recovering their initial loan. However, as of January 1, 2016, Chapter 66 protects junior leases from termination by foreclosure, and retroactively applies to mortgages that were issued years earlier. Unfortunately, due to the recently volatile energy market, some junior leases may significantly decrease property values. Therefore, lenders that issued mortgages with the expectation that foreclosures would remove junior leases may be less likely to recoup their outstanding debt. This Article describes the nature of Chapter 66, and explores Texas jurisprudence surrounding retroactive laws. It then analyzes the statute under the Supreme Court of Texas’s 2010 Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal decision, and explains how a Texas court may find that Chapter 66 is unconstitutionally retroactive.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信