The counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice prior to the trial court's ruling that led to the judgment appealed from here. ¶ 7 Unit moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether it was entitled to immediate cash balancing as a matter of law. It argued that the JOA created a cotenancy in production, and, under the Supreme Court's decision in Harrell v. Samson Resources Co., 1998 OK 69, 980 P.2d 99 , cash balancing became mandatory immediately upon Mobil's sale of its interest — i.e., upon the termination of Mobil's cotenant relationship with Unit. Mobil, Amoco, and Gothic objected, asserting that cash balancing was not warranted based on a balancing of the equities in the case, which they asserted included the fact that balancing-in-kind is "preferred" in the industry when the reserves are sufficient, and that "[n]o equitable consideration overrides this presumptively preferred method of balancing." They also argued the statute of limitations begins running on a claim between co-tenants upon "ouster" of one co-tenant by another, and that ouster had not occurred because Gothic had assumed liability for balancing and had honored Unit's right to take in kind.

An under-produced working interest owner in a gas well has a personal claim (does not follow title to the leasehold interest) which must be specifically transferred or assigned. Harrell v. Samson Resources, Inc. [Co.,] 1998 OK 69, 980 P.2d 99, 105, 107. The statute of limitations for such claims begins to run when there is an ouster or a termination of the cotenancy relationship between the under-produced party and the overproduced party.

" In the oil and gas industry, this provision is referred to as a "take in kind" provision and it is "included in operating agreements to avoid the tax consequences of being classified as an association taxable as a corporation [citation]." ( Harrell v. Samson Resources Co. (1998) 1998 OK 69 [980 P.2d 99, 103].) When the parties do take in kind, it is not uncommon for imbalances to occur.

Id. (citing McGinnity v. Kirk, 2015 OK 73, ¶ 8, 362 P.3d 186, 190). "Whenever the law and facts so warrant, an equity decree may be affirmed if it is sustainable on any rational theory and the ultimate conclusion reached below is legally correct." In re Estate of Vose, 2017 OK 3, ¶ 10, 390 P.3d 238, 242 (citing Harrell v. Samson Res. Co., 1998 OK 69, ¶ 31, 980 P.2d 99, 107; Bankoff v. Bd. of Adjustment of Wagoner Cty., 1994 OK 58, ¶ 17, 875 P.2d 1138, 1143; In re Estate of Bartlett, 1984 OK 9, ¶ 4, 680 P.2d 369, 374). III.

Id . (citing McGinnity v. Kirk , 2015 OK 73, ¶ 8, 362 P.3d 186, 190 ). "Whenever the law and facts so warrant, an equity decree may be affirmed if it is sustainable on any rational theory and the ultimate conclusion reached below is legally correct." In re Estate of Vose , 2017 OK 3, ¶ 10, 390 P.3d 238, 242 (citing Harrell v. Samson Res. Co. , 1998 OK 69, ¶ 31, 980 P.2d 99, 107 ; Bankoff v. Bd. of Adjustment of Wagoner Cty. , 1994 OK 58, ¶ 17, 875 P.2d 1138, 1143 ; In re Estate of Bartlett , 1984 OK 9, ¶ 4, 680 P.2d 369, 374 ). III.

McGinnity v. Kirk, 2015 OK 73, ¶ 8, 362 P.3d 186, 190. When reviewing a case at equity, this Court is not bound by the district court's findings and will consider the whole record and weigh the evidence. Harrell v. Samson Res. Co., 1998 OK 69, ¶ 31, 980 P.2d 99, 107. ¶12 Issues in this appeal concern the district court's legal interpretation of Oklahoma's nuisance statutes, specifically 51 O.S.2011, §§ 1 and 2.

In re Estate of Bleeker , 2007 OK 68, ¶ 12, 168 P.3d 774 ; Sneed , 1998 OK 8, ¶ 8, 953 P.2d 1111 ; In re Estate of Maheras , 1995 OK 40, ¶ 7, 897 P.2d 268. Whenever the law and facts so warrant, an equity decree may be affirmed if it is sustainable on any rational theory and the ultimate conclusion reached below is legally correct. Harrell v. Samson Resources Co. , 1998 OK 69, ¶ 31, 980 P.2d 99 ; Bankoff v. Bd. of Adjustment of Wagoner County , 1994 OK 58, ¶ 17, 875 P.2d 1138 ; In re Estate of Bartlett , 1984 OK 9, ¶ 4, 680 P.2d 369. III.

When reviewing a case at equity, this Court is not bound by the trial court's findings and will consider the whole record and weigh the evidence. Harrell v. Samson Resources Co. , 1998 OK 69, ¶ 31, 980 P.2d 99, 107 (citation omitted).Analysis

When reviewing a case at equity, this Court is not bound by the trial court's findings and will consider the whole record and weigh the evidence. Harrell v. Samson Resources Co., 1998 OK 69, ¶ 31, 980 P.2d 99, 107 (citation omitted). Analysis

May–Li Barki v. Liberty Bank and Trust Co., 1999 OK 87, ¶ 4, fn. 15, 20 P.3d 135; Fleet v. Sanguine, 1993 OK 76, ¶ 11, 854 P.2d 892; Huff v. State, 1988 OK 118, ¶ 11, 764 P.2d 183.Heiman v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 1995 OK 19, ¶ 14, 891 P.2d 1252; Harrell v. Samson Resources Co., 1998 OK 69, ¶ 37, 980 P.2d 99; Withrow v. Red Eagle Oil Co., see note 26, supra; Sisney v. Smalley, 1984 OK 70, ¶ 18, 690 P.2d 1048.Withrow v. Red Eagle Oil Co., see note 26, supra;