Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Yokel v. Hite

Yokel v. Hite

Case Date: 05/06/2004
Court: 5th District Appellate
Docket No: 5-02-0674 Rel

Rule 23 order filed
April 7, 2004;
Motion to publish granted
May 6, 2004.


NO. 5-02-0674

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT

ROBERT M. YOKEL, MARY E. YOKEL,
and FRANK L. YOKEL,

     Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

THOMAS M. HITE,

     Defendant-Appellee,

and

PAUL CASH, R.A. HARRIS, C.M. HARRIS,
LEONA P. HARRIS, PAUL L. STRINE, GUS C.
TRAMP, BETTY CAIN, CHARLES W. OSBORNE,
MARILYN T. OSBORNE, EVELYN H. RAY,
ROBERT MASON, MARILYN LONGBONS, GERRY
SCHOESSLER, STEVE CAIN, RICK BARE, TOM
KEITH, NICHOLAS CAIN, STEVE CASTLEN,
FARM BUREAU OIL COMPANY, and Unknown
Owners and Nonrecord Claimants,

     Defendants.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Edwards County.


No. 97-CH-6















Honorable
Stephen G. Sawyer,
Judge, presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE CHAPMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiffs, Robert, Mary, and Frank Yokel, appeal an order striking, with prejudice,three counts of their complaint which alleged that the defendant Thomas M. Hite, who was theoperator under an agreement unitizing several neighboring oil and gas leases, had breachedfiduciary duties he owed to the plaintiffs. The trial court found that the counts failed to allegefacts from which it could find that Hite owed the plaintiffs a fiduciary duty. We affirm the trialcourt's ruling.

 

I. BACKGROUND

The instant dispute involves an oil and gas lease and a unitization agreement that aremore or less typical, with one somewhat unusual provision in the unitization agreement. In anoil and gas lease, the royalty interest is the portion of the proceeds that the landowner isentitled to be paid. In a typical lease, that portion is one-eighth. 38 Am. Jur. 2d Gas & Oil