K. Petroleum, Inc. v. Bernice Hubacek

── K. Petroleum, Inc. v. Bernice Hubacek ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0171n.06 No. 25-5759 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Apr 17, 2026 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) K. PETROLEUM, INC., ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT v. ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN ) DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BERNICE HUBACEK, ) Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION ) ) Before: GIBBONS, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Gas producer K. Petroleum sued landowner Bernice Hubacek for breach of contract, claiming that Hubacek had interfered with its rightful production of natural gas from three wells on her property. Hubacek countersued on a maintenance of easement theory, demanding the company pay the cost of improving the road used to access the wells. The jury returned a verdict for K. Petroleum, awarding it $108,000 on the breach of contract claim and rejecting Hubacek’s easement claim. The district court denied Hubacek’s motion for new trial. She appeals. We AFFIRM. I. Bernice Hubacek moved from New Jersey to a 164-acre farm in a remote part of rural Clay County, Kentucky in 2019. A prior owner had entered into a lease with K. Petroleum to operate three natural gas wells on the property. The company’s employees visited the wells once per month to record production and check for safety hazards. Doing so involved the use of a dirt access road in the back of the farm that the company had used to install the wells. No. 25-5759, K. Petroleum, Inc. v. Hubacek Hubacek first encountered K. Petroleum’s employees shortly after buying the farm. Though she had a vague sense that “[t]here was something about the gas being on the property” when she bought the farm, she did not know the details of the lease. R. 85, Trial Tr., PageID 1354. A series of contentious interactions with K. Petroleum’s employees, however, led her to lock the gate and demand that the company notify her before accessing the property. Soon afterward, she informed the company that its employees could not access the wells until they laid down gravel to improve the access road. Although neither party’s witnesses could provide specific dates, these events appear to have occurred shortly after Hubacek bought the farm in March 2019. Eventually, K. Petroleum sent Hubacek a letter in April 2021 demanding that she permit its employees on her land. After doing her own research at the county clerk’s office, Hubacek came to the incorrect conclusion that the company did not have a valid lease. She sent a letter to that effect and demanded that the company cease “trespass[ing].” R. 63-9, Ltr., PageID 735. The company responded that it intended to sue her in federal court. And it did. Hubacek filed an answer and counterclaim. K. Petroleum’s motion for partial summary judgment then narrowed the issues at trial: The company sought damages for breach of its lease and, after finding the well valves closed during an attorney inspection, asserted that Hubacek had shut off the wells during the time she had barred K. Petroleum from the property.