Blog

In 1809, an Englishman by the name of Forrester left a large pole lying in the road as he was repairing his home. Another man, Butterfield, was riding on the road. His horse tripped on the pole, causing him to fall. Witnesses said that if Butterfield had not been riding too fast for the conditions, he would have seen the pole. The court found that Forrester was negligent. However, Butterfield was barred from recovering anything because of his own negligence. This became known as the rule of contributory negligence. If a plaintiff was guilty of negligence, no matter how slight, his negligence operated as a total bar to recovery. Contributory negligence soon crossed over to the American legal system. But because the rule was so harsh and led to unfair, inconsistent results, opposition grew. Eventually, in the 1960s, states began adopting comparative negligence--a system under which the plaintiff’s negligence is compared to the negligence of the defendant. West Virginia and Ohio have adopted comparative negligence. In both states, the jury assigns a percentage of negligence to the plaintiff and to any other party whose conduct caused or contributed to the injury. The total negligence must equal 100%. In West Virginia, the plaintiff can recover if his negligence is less than 50%. However, his recovery will be reduced in proportion to his negligence. If, for example, a plaintiff is 10% negligent and his damages are $100,000, he will recover $90,000. But if the jury finds that the plaintiff’s negligence was 50% or more, he will recover nothing. Ohio’s comparative negligence rule is similar. However, in Ohio a plaintiff can still recover even if he is found to be 50% negligent. Like most rules of law, comparative negligence can be difficult to apply and is subject to important exceptions. The lawyers at Bordas & Bordas are well-versed in all the rules of negligence, including comparative negligence. If you have been injured as a result of someone else’s negligence, give us a call for a free consultation--even if it’s possible that you may have been negligent too.

Attorneys, like many other professionals, need to be licensed to practice in a particular jurisdiction. Generally, the jurisdiction will be a state. Attorneys generally gain admission to practice in a state by graduating from law school, passing the Professional Responsibility bar exam, and practicing the bar exam administered by the state in which they seek to be licensed and practice. There are other means of admission for attorneys who have been in practice for a number of years and are in good standing with the bar where they may apply for admission to another state through paperwork instead, and some states will allow reciprocity admissions, whereby if the attorney may be admitted if they have passed the bar in a state where reciprocity is permitted. Admission to a particular state allows that attorney to practice in the courts within the state. Separate admission to federal courts can then be sought as well. However, circumstances arise where an attorney may be called upon to participate in a case that is pending before a court in a state where that attorney is not licensed. For example, an attorney who is licensed in West Virginia and practicing law at a firm in the state of West Virginia may be asked to work on a case that the firm has received that is proceeding through a court in Pennsylvania. While the West Virginia attorney can do all kind of legal research and other important work on the case without a Pennsylvania license, in order to attend court hearings, depositions, or other formal proceedings in that case, that attorney would need a Pennsylvania license. Because it is usually impractical for an attorney to obtain a license in another state for just a case or two, the courts permit a process where an attorney licensed and in good standing in another state may be admitted “ pro hac vice” to practice before their court in a particular case. Pro hac vice essentially means “for this occasion only.” In general, for a lawyer to be admitted to practice pro hac vice on a case, they must enter into an agreement with a lawyer who is licensed in the state where they seek to practice to be admitted under that lawyer’s bar license and to learn and abide by all of the rules of the state where they seek this temporary admission. In the case of the West Virginia attorney seeking to practice on a case in Pennsylvania, a Pennsylvania attorney would have to sign formal court documents vouching for the West Virginia attorney’s good standing and ability to learn and comply with West Virginia court rules and laws, and that they will assist the West Virginia attorney in doing so. The Pennsylvania attorney would also agree to attend any formal proceedings along with the attorney gaining pro hac vice admission. A court in Pennsylvania would have to approve the pro hac vice admission, and enter an order stating that admission, which will last only for that particular case. If the attorney who has been admitted to practice pro hac vice on a case violates some rule of law or ethics, the state in which they have received pro hac vice admission is able to take disciplinary action. The specific rules of pro hac vice admission may vary from one jurisdiction to another, but if you see an out-of-state lawyer’s name appear on a case, they may very well be participating as a pro hac vice admission.

The traditional physician-patient relationship begins when a patient seeks care from a doctor, and conversely, the doctor agrees to render care to the patient. Throughout history this has been the basis of the physician-patient relationship, a face-to-face interaction between both parties that implicates a doctor’s duty to a patient, and ultimately the applicable standard of care owed to that patient. However, with the rise of technology, this traditional physician-patient relationship has grown to be quite complicated. In 2018, medical providers may be responsible for your care in a “non-traditional” sense. Specifically, when we look at the growth of technology in the medical field it’s apparent that the physician-patient relationship is continually evolving. For example, there are now several electronic health portals in which patients can directly access not only their medical records, but also their doctor directly for medical advice via their cell phone, tablet, or computer. Essentially these tools make up the “secure patient portal.” These portals are essentially sites that compile all of the patient’s health information and allow patients to ask their doctors questions, schedule appointments, and request prescription refills. Although these portals have been praised by some as they allow for greater accessibility of physicians, and can also promote the patient’s ability to affirmatively take part in their health, there are still associated risks that often leave the patient portal “unsecure.” These risks primarily stem from the use of electronic health portals via phones and portable electronic devices such as tablets, as these devices lack the security that has been instilled on hospital computers and may be accessed by experienced hackers who are skilled at undermining our electronic devices. Nonetheless, there are laws and guidelines that regulate this technology. Specifically, with the implementation of 45 C.F.R. §164.312(e)(1), was a requirement to “mplement technical security measures to guard against unauthorized access to electronic protected health information that is being transmitted over an electronic communications network.” These precautions have been in existence since the rise of electronic communication as it relates to medical information, however, with the sophistication of online hackers as well as technology in general, patients, doctors, and hospitals are at risk when they take part in this wide technological network. More specifically, with the use of cell phones and tablets, doctors and patients may both be rendering themselves vulnerable to the distribution of private health information. Further, the use of these electronics may be risky in a less technical sense in that if a physician or patient’s phone or tablet is misplaced or even stolen, a wide variety of personal information may be placed in the hands of the wrong person. Accordingly, it is as important as ever to take all measures necessary to keep this information private when utilizing the newest form of technology, especially in light of the ongoing security breaches in various institutions across the United States.

In 1872, Victoria Woodhull ran for President; she was the first woman in the United States to run, and her party was called the Equal Rights Party. She couldn’t even vote for herself, however, since it was nearly 50 years before the 19 th Amendment to the Constitution gave women the right to vote. Not only was she the first woman to run, but her running mate, Frederick Douglass, was the first African-American ever nominated for vice president. Victoria Woodhull was a colorful and convention-defying woman. She was born in Homer, Ohio is 1838, and was an activist for women’s rights and labor reform. She also advocated “free love,” by which she meant the freedom to marry, divorce, and bear children without government interference; these freedoms for women were radical concepts during her time. She rallied against the hypocrisy of society’s tolerance for men who had mistresses. Woodhull made her first fortune as a traveling healer and clairvoyant. When she was young, her father put her and her sister, Tennessee, to work telling fortunes, contacting spirits, selling life elixirs, and offering cures for diseases ranging from cancer to asthma. She claimed to have made a small fortune with this business during the Civil War, but there were setbacks. For example, her sister/business partner was indicted for manslaughter in Illinois after one of her cancer patients died. The sisters moved to New York City, where they met railroad baron Cornelius Vanderbilt and worked as personal clairvoyants and healers for him. They also got stock tips from Vanderbilt, from which they profited well during a gold panic in 1869. With the financial backing of Vanderbilt, Woodhull and her sister became the first female stockbrokers on Wall Street, operating their own brokerage firm. They never gained a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, though, something that no woman would achieve until 1967. The sisters also began to publish their own newspaper. In April 1870, Woodhull announced her candidacy for president, campaigning on a platform of women’s suffrage, regulation of monopolies, an eight-hour work day, and welfare for the poor, among other things. She was nominated at the Equal Rights Party’s May 1872 convention. Although the party also nominated famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass as her running mate, he himself never acknowledged the nomination. Ulysses Grant won the 1872 presidential election, serving his second term. Woodhull returned full-time to her advocacy, and following the election, she published an article in her newspaper aimed at exposing the popular preacher, Henry Ward Beecher, as an adulterous hypocrite. Beecher had condemned Woodhull’s free love philosophy in his sermons, which infuriated Woodhull, especially given his extramarital affair with a married woman. Beecher had many supporters, and the backlash was immediate. Beecher’s supporters helped the authorities secure information to issue arrest warrants for Woodhull and her sister on charges of sending obscene material through the mail. The “obscene material” was the exposure of the affair in her newspaper. Woodhull ultimately was acquitted, although she remained in jail for about a month. Eventually, Woodhull moved to England, where she met and married her third husband. In England, she became a champion for educational reform. She died at the age of 88, in 1927.

God first announced His plan for sending a savior in the garden of Eden. When Adam sinned, God promised to send someone to “crush” the wily serpent and to provide a final remedy for sin. Again and again the prophets repeated this promise.  But the savior would not come as a conquering hero. No, the prophets said he would come as a suffering sin-bearer who would willingly lay down his life. When Jesus arrived on the scene, the crowds saw a teacher, a healer, and a miracle worker. But Jesus fully understood His mission. He knew that His life was on a divine trajectory that would lead Him to the cross. “I lay down my life,” He said, “so that I may take it up again.” To make the point perfectly clear, He added: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own.” The old hymn reminds us that as He hung on the cross “He could have called ten thousand angels.” Jesus, the Son of God, had every heavenly resource at His command. But He was determined to fulfill His life’s purpose.  So He endured the scourging, the beatings, the humiliation and, yes, even the cross. He did it all willingly. He did it with a faithful and obedient heart. He did it with you and me in mind. It wasn’t nails that held Jesus to the cross. It was love!

Over the years a debate has ensued between Fleet Owners about the necessity to install inward and outward facing cameras on all commercial tractor trailers. Safety directors have become proponents of installing these cameras, believing they are vital tools for commercial drivers going forward, outweighing any privacy or other concerns drivers and/or Fleet Owners may have. Over the last two years nationally recognized trucking companies have installed such cameras on their tractor trailers.  The belief is that truck drivers were getting blamed for accidents where they were not at fault. With that being said, the same argument holds true if the truck driver is at fault. These cameras ultimately serve as a silent witness because they tell an unbiased full and complete story as to how the accident happened. If injured in a trucking accident, it is vital for you to immediately contact an attorney who can prepare and send a preservation letter to the applicable commercial carrier so that any video footage is saved. The longer you wait, the greater likelihood the video footage is destroyed! Carriers have been known to record over unfavorable footage, or simply fail to save it without a preservation letter. These cameras, if present, can be your most valuable witness at trial. The cameras may show evidence of the truck driver’s negligent behavior, forcing the driver’s employer and/or applicable insurance carrier to take notice and effectively manage the risk in those situations. The camera provides an honest, up-front evaluation regarding exposure, and never lies! If you have any questions regarding this issue please call Bordas and Bordas and we will be happy to discuss.

March is Women’s History Month. We celebrate the lives of remarkable women, both the well-known and those whose stories have been largely forgotten. One such woman is Jo Ann Robinson, a largely unsung heroine who played a key role in the historic 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott. Jo Ann Gibson Robinson was born on April 17, 1912, in Culloden, Georgia, the youngest of 12 children. She distinguished herself early as the valedictorian of her high school class, and she later became the first person in her family to graduate from college. She attended Fort Valley State College and fulfilled her dream of becoming a public school teacher in Macon, Georgia. She taught in Macon for five years while earning a master’s degree from Atlanta University. In addition, she pursued English studies at Columbia University in New York. After teaching in Texas, Robinson accepted a position at Alabama State College in Montgomery, Alabama. It was in Montgomery that she became active in the Women’s Political Council (“WPC”). WPC was a local civic organization for African American professional women that was dedicated to fostering women’s involvement in civic affairs, increasing voter registration in the city’s black community, and aiding women who were victims of sexual assault. In 1949, soon after arriving in Montgomery, Robinson was verbally attacked by a public city bus driver for sitting in the front “whites only” section of the bus. This event had a profound effect on her, and the following year, when she was elected president of WPC, Robinson made desegregating the city’s buses one of the organization’s top priorities. Her precise response was an attempt to start a protest boycott. The WPC repeatedly complained to Montgomery city leaders about unfair seating practices and abusive bus driver conduct, but their complaints went nowhere. Nonetheless, Robinson continued as an outspoken critic of the treatment of African-Americans on public transportation.  She also was active in the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. Following Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and Rosa Parks’ arrest in December 1955 for refusing to give up her seat to a white person who was standing, Robinson and a few associates leaped into action. That same evening, with Mrs. Parks’ permission, Robinson stayed up copying over 50,000 handbills at her church, calling for a one-day bus boycott because of the treatment of Rosa Parks. The handbills were distributed around the city in black communities. The one-day boycott was a success, and for this reason, the campaign was continued, this time with the involvement of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In order to protect her position and her colleagues at Alabama State, Robinson purposely stayed out of the limelight, working diligently in the background organizing and providing transportation for boycotters. Robinson became the target of several acts of intimidation. In February 1956, a local police officer threw a stone through the window of her house. Two weeks later, another police officer poured acid on her car. Finally, the Governor ordered the state police to protect the boycott leaders. Although African Americans represented over 75 percent of Montgomery’s bus ridership, the city resisted complying with the protesters’ demands. The boycott lasted for over a year because the bus company simply would not give into the demands of the protesters. Initially, the demands did not include changing the segregation laws, rather, the group demanded simple courtesy, the hiring of black bus drives, and a first-come, first- seated policy, with whites entering and filling seats from the front and African Americans from the rear. Ultimately, however, the NAACP sued the city in federal district court seeking to have the busing segregation laws totally invalidated, and they succeeded. The boycott continued until December 20, 1956, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared segregated seating on buses unconstitutional. The Montgomery bus boycott was one of the first successful protests of segregation in the deep south, inspiring other nonviolent civil rights protests. It also established Dr. King as a prominent national figure. Robinson was especially proud of the role that women played in the boycott’s success, saying: “Women’s leadership was no less important to the development of the Montgomery Bus Boycott than was the male and minister-dominated leadership.” Not long after the boycott ended, Robinson resigned from her position at Alabama State College and moved on to Grambling College in Louisiana, and later to public schools in Los Angeles, California. Robinson published a memoir entitled The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Woman Who Started It in 1987. In it, she expressed her great pride in the success of the boycott.  She remained actively involved in her community and in local politics until her death in Los Angeles on August 29, 1992.

With recent events returning the never-ending debate over “gun control” back to the headlines, it occurs to me that this would be a good opportunity to provide folks with a basic (and I mean very basic) primer on constitutional law and its application. Thus, I offer the following. For purposes of this article, I’m going to limit my discussion to rights conveyed by the various amendments to the United States Constitution. Those rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a trial by jury, and the right to keep and bear arms are familiar to pretty much everyone. What people don’t seem to understand, however, is that our Supreme Court has consistently held that even the most basic of our constitutional rights can be subject to regulation or restriction. “Pardon me”, you say? “You’re telling me that constitutional rights can be restricted?” The answer is a very clear yes, although the standards that apply in such situations are difficult to meet. Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has identified certain constitutional rights as “fundamental”. I won’t give you an exhaustive list of the rights that are within that group, but I can tell you that freedom of speech, the right of privacy, and the right to keep and bear arms all have been found to fit the definition of a fundamental right. In order to restrict such a right, the government has to demonstrate that it has a “compelling state interest” which the proposed restriction seeks to protect. For instance, in the case which legalized a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, the Supreme Court held that a woman’s right to privacy (a fundamental right) outweighed the claimed “state interest” in protecting the health of pregnant women in the first trimester of pregnancy. Similarly, the Court has also held that the compelling state interest in protecting children from exploitation outweighs the constitutionally-established right of freedom of speech. Thus, possessing or transmitting child pornography is illegal. Even the Second Amendment itself has been limited, in ways that very few folks would question. The amendment provides that the right “of the people” to keep and bear arms is protected. No exceptions appear to limit which “people” the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they crafted this amendment, yet many such limitations exist, apparently without a lot of debate. A convicted felon is not only prohibited from possessing a firearm; he is subject to arrest and imprisonment if he has one. A person who has been adjudged to be mentally ill is also prohibited from purchasing a firearm, as is a person who has been convicted of domestic violence. Where in the Second Amendment do those qualifications on a fundamental constitutional right appear? The answer is nowhere. They don’t exist, yet few of us question whether they are appropriate. The same can be said of fully automatic weapons. Nowhere in the Second Amendment do we find a limitation on the types of weapons that citizens are permitted to own, yet possession of such a weapon is illegal. In writing this article, I am certainly not trying to persuade the reader in one direction or another in terms of the gun control debate. I simply am trying to help people understand that even a right which appears in our Constitution is subject to regulation and restriction under the proper circumstances. If the government has a compelling interest it is seeking to protect, and the fundamental right the government seeks to restrict is fairly and narrowly regulated by the law in question, the restrictive law may be upheld by the courts. The question is not simply whether or not a constitutional right exists; the proper question is whether or not the state has a sufficiently compelling interest to justify restriction of that fundamental constitutional right. A very, very basic explanation of an extremely complex area of the law. I hope you find it to be informative, if not useful.

Gone are the days when wedding planning involved calling the best bakers in your family to put together that wedding cake or hiring your old friend from college to act as the DJ on your big night. In 2018, the wedding business industry is one of the fastest-growing businesses and if successful, can be a profitable way to make a living. With that being said, hiring a vendor for your wedding day, whether it be a photographer, caterer, etc., comes with more obligations than may meet the eye. First, your vendor will likely have a contract for you to read that can list many details such as how much they charge for their services, when those invoices must be paid, and many other particularities that one may overlook in all the excitement of the wedding planning process. Some vendors may require that they be used for a certain amount of time, others may provide that in the event of bad weather or some other unexpected circumstance, that they may cancel the contract at the last minute. These are all details that may seem insignificant months from the big day, but as with all things of importance, it’s always a great idea to take your time and read through the details. Although signing a contract to hire someone to work with you on your wedding day such as a hairdresser or a photobooth operator may not seem like a big deal – it’s important to know what your obligations and rights are under any contract you sign. If you don’t understand a provision or you are uncertain that it applies to you – ask your vendor to explain so there are no unexpected surprises. Happy planning!

Legislation introduced by Congressman Alex Mooney (R-WV-2), and being considered in a U.S. House of Representatives Committee this week, would exempt attorneys and law firms from rules designed to protect West Virginians from abusive debt collection practices. As attorneys we know that this legislation is tragically misguided. H.R. 5082, the Practice of Law Technical Clarification Act of 2018, would severely weaken the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by carving out an exception, just for attorneys that immunizes them from liability when they abuse the debt collection process in court. It would also prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from exercising its supervisory and enforcement authority over lawyers and firms engaged in abusive debt collection practices. According to the Urban Institute’s findings, 42 percent of West Virginians have debts in collections, nearly 10 points above the national average. More than half of the residents of Braxton and Clay counties, in Representative Mooney’s district, have debts in collections. If his bill should pass, hundreds of thousands of West Virginians will likely be exposed to harmful and aggressive debt collection practices previously made illegal under federal law. Every year thousands of cases are filed in the courts against West Virginia consumers to collect debts. The majority of these cases are filed by lawyers representing debt buyers— out-of-state businesses that buy delinquent debts for pennies on the dollar. Many of the debts cannot be verified as actually owed by a particular defendant, or include inflated amounts due, or indeed, have already been completely satisfied. Yet consumers rarely have the resources to contest these cases. As a result, many cases result in a default judgment for the collector, allowing the debt buyers to seize the assets and wages of the consumer-defendant.  These judgments will generally have a long-lasting impact on the consumer’s credit report, making it more difficult for consumers to obtain housing, a loan, find a job or even secure insurance. Some Recent Examples of Abuses Against West Virginia Consumers Include Parents being harassed and threatened for debts owed by their adult child A bank foreclosed on the wrong property and took the owners’ furniture, clothes and other belongings to the town dump--and it was the wrong house! Harassing a woman for debts she did not owe after her identity was stolen Debt collectors lying to consumers by telling them to pay up or the police were on their way to arrest them if they didn't pay in full immediately Consumer getting sued for a medical debt she had already paid in full The current federal consumer protection law provides a remedy for consumers who have been abused in these ways, and allows them to sue lawyers who bring these cases in unfair, deceptive, or abusive ways. But Congressman Mooney’s bill—H.R. 5082—eliminates these protections for consumers, simply for the benefit of the attorneys who are hurting consumers. If it passes, his bill would allow lawyers to subject West Virginians to numerous unfair litigation tactics currently prohibited under this federal law. In short, Congressman Mooney’s bill will hurt those he is supposed to represent. This effort to shield attorneys and law firms from the consequences of breaking the law will come at the expense of West Virginia consumers, their families, and the majority of debt collectors and attorneys that abide by the law. Lawyers occupy a privileged role in our justice system and should be held to the highest ethical and professional standards. For that reason, to support West Virginia consumers and ethical attorneys engaged in debt collection, we urge Rep. Mooney to pull his support for this bad bill. -- Jason Causey, of Bordas and Bordas, represents consumers throughout West Virginia and Ohio; Margot Saunders, who lives in Hurricane, WV, has been an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center for over 25 years, a national public interest law firm representing low-income consumers before Congress and the federal agencies.

I have recently decided to eliminate sodas and other sweetened drinks from my daily regimen.  Problem is, I have always despised drinking “just plain water”. It’s boring and tasteless to me. Soda is fun, bubbly and full of flavor. However, those concoctions have gotten me somewhat addicted to this sugary drink which has resulted in a few extra pounds. I reminisced back to our family vacation to Cancun, Mexico last year. When we walked into our resort, we were handed glasses of “cucumber water” which was immediately refreshing to us after our three-hour flight into 103-degree weather. As I researched online for a recipe for this water (which was more than just cucumbers and water) I became introduced to “water infusion”. I purchased an infuser water bottle along with a few organic fruits and mint. My problem is solved! I can now hydrate myself using a healthier option while eliminating the artificial sweeteners and dyes. Here are a few recipes that I enjoy: Cucumber Mint - Thinly slice one cucumber. Peel if it isn’t organic! Add the sliced cucumbers to a ½ gallon glass jar, add 8 muddled fresh mint leaves, and fill with filtered water. Stir gently and place in refrigerator for at least 4 Strawberry Lemon - Add 15 fresh strawberries, washed and finely sliced to a ½ gallon glass jar. Add one sliced lemon with rind on. Fill with water. Stir gently and refrigerate 4 hours or overnight in refrigerator and enjoy. Grapefruit Raspberry - Add one grapefruit, thinly sliced with rind on, to a gallon-size glass jar. Then add ½ cup slightly muddled fresh raspberries. Add water and mix well. Store in refrigerator for at least 4 hours before drinking. So grab your pitcher or infuser bottle and get creative for a healthier you!!

For all the negative ideas coming out of Charleston during the recent legislative session, there was one small victory for mineral owners. Some of you might be aware that the West Virginia Supreme Court recently held a rehearing of one of its prior decisions, EQT v. Legget, and determined that oil and gas operators would be permitted to subtract post-production costs from old “flat-rate” royalty leases which had been modified by the minimum royalty statute. Years ago, there were many oil and gas leases which did not pay mineral owners a percentage of proceeds for their royalty, but instead paid pre-set flat fee- for example $300 per year after a well was drilled. Ultimately, the West Virginia legislature passed a statute which required minimum royalties of 12.5%. Old “flat-rate” leases were grandfathered into the new law unless the operator needed to alter their permit.  After the permit was altered, those old leases had to meet the 12.5% royalty requirement. Could the oil and gas operator subtract post-production costs from that minimum 12.5% royalty under the statute? Originally the West Virginia Supreme Court said no. A change in the make-up of the Court after the most recent Supreme Court elections enabled the new majority to rehear that decision and change their ruling. The new Court decided that it would allow post-production costs to be deducted from those 12.5% statutory leases. This year, however, Senate Bill 360 changed that. The bill passed both houses and was signed by the governor on March 9, 2018. The new law specifically altered the language of W.Va. Code § 22-6-8(e) to state that payments under the statute should be based on “the gross proceeds, free from any post-production expenses.” This does provide some protection to mineral owners, but there are still questions. The statute includes language referencing the “first point of sale” which still might be used to limit the monies ultimately payable to mineral owners.   Oil and gas operators might try to create earlier markets for gas such that the “price” that they receive is lower and ultimately lower royalties are paid to landowners. The concern is that these oil and gas operators might still obtain their value for the gas through other contractual and business relationships with the “third parties” who buy the gas. In any event, in a legislative session which seemed intent on continuing to protect big business, and the oil and gas industry in particular, there was one small victory and perhaps something that can be built upon moving forward. The new law, however, does not fully protect other landowners from the dangers of post-production costs. The oil and gas companies are continuing their assault on landowners by trying to milk every last cent of costs from the landowner’s royalty share. Landowners are losing as much as 50-60% of their royalty payments to these costs. If you have concerns about the nature and types of costs being deducted from your royalty checks, please do not hesitate to contact us!