Brigham Oil v. Lario Oil
Brigham Oil and Gas, L.P., Plaintiff and Appellant
Lario Oil & Gas Company Defendant and Appellee
Murex Petroleum Corporation, Defendant
Lario Oil & Gas Company, Third Party Plaintiff and Appellees
Jon Avery, Third Party Defendant
Georgette O. Navarro and
The Triple T, Inc., Third Party Defendants
Intervenors and Appellants
North Central Judicial District,
Judge William W. McLees
|Nature of Action:||Oil, Gas and Minerals|
|Term:||04/2011  Argument: 04/06/2011|
|ND cite:||2011 ND 154|
801 N.W.2d 677
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I. The District Court erred in determining that Navarro did not present the holographic codicil to the California court.
II. The District Court erred in determining that the mineral ownership vested only in Avery immediately upon Testerman's death.
III. The District Court erred in determining that the California Order on Petition of Final Distribution dated June 17, 2005 was a final order.
IV. The District Court erred in determining that Lario and Brigham had to be part of any probate settlement.
V. The District Court erred in giving no credence to the fact that the California inventory and appraisal did not include the North Dakota minerals.
VI. The District Court erred in determining that no valid fraud claim existed with reference to the holographic codicil.
VII. The District Court erred in finding that Navarro did not provide Dublin or Lario with notice of the California litigation.
Appellant Triple T, Inc. Issues First, did the district court err in failing to allow an indispensable party the right to intervene when it did not find that any prejudice to the existing parties would result from the intervention?
Second, does the failure to join an indispensable party make a judgment void under Rule 60(b)(iv) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure?
Third and finally, does the lessee of a mineral lease receive an interest in 100% of the mineral acres described in the lease when the lessor only received a deed to 25% of the mineral acres?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Appellee's issues: 1. Whether the district court erred in determining that Navarro did not present the alleged holographic codicil to the California court;
2. Whether the district court erred in determining that the mineral ownership vested only in Avery immediately upon Testerman's death;
3. Whether the district court erred in determining that the California order on petition of final distribution dated June 17, 2005 was a final order;
4. Whether the district court erred in determining that Lario and Brigham had to be part of any probate settlement;
5. Whether the district court erred in giving no credence to the fact that the California inventory and appraisal did not include the North Dakota minerals;
6. Whether the district court erred in determining that no valid fraud claim existed with reference to the holographic codicil; and
7. Whether the district court erred in finding that Navarro did not provide Dublin or Lario with notice of the California litigation.
|Add Docket 20100211 RSS|
|1||07/07/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 06/28/2010|
|2||07/07/2010 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 06/28/2010|
|3||07/13/2010 Acknowledgment of OTR & RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 08/17/2010|
|4||08/04/2010 TRANSCRIPT DATED NOVEMBER 17, 2009, & C.O.S.|
|5||08/04/2010 DISK-TRA (11/17/09) E-MAILED|
|6||08/17/2010 RECORD ON APPEAL|
|7||09/02/2010 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|8||09/02/2010 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Motion for extension of time of Appellant's Brief). Granted: 10/13/2010|
|9||09/22/2010 MOTION FOR ORDER FOR TEMPORARY REMAND|
|10||09/22/2010 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Granted|
|11||09/22/2010 ORDER OF REMAND|
|12||09/22/2010 Order of Remand Sent to Parties|
|13||01/03/2011 Refiled Record on Appeal after Remand|
|14||01/04/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (sua sponte) (reset due to remand)|
|15||01/04/2011 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT) (sua sponte - reset after remand). Granted: 02/07/2011|
|16||01/12/2011 1st Supplemental Clerk's Certifcate of Record dated January 11, 2011 (Entry Nos. 52 & 53).|
|17||01/13/2011 This case is consolidated w/20110016. Make all entries in this case except DIS & MAN.|
|18||01/21/2011 Lario Oil's counterclaim dismissed by District Court|
|19||01/25/2011 2nd Supplemental Clerk's Certificate of Record dated January 21, 2011. (entry nos. 57 - 60)|
|20||02/03/2011 APPELLANT BRIEF (Brigham Oil and Gas, L.P.)|
|21||02/03/2011 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|22||02/03/2011 DISK - ATA (e-mail)|
|23||02/07/2011 APPELLANT BRIEF-TRIPLE T (E-FILED) PDF|
|24||02/07/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (TRIPLE T) PDF|
|25||02/07/2011 APPELLANT APPENDIX (TRIPLE T) E-FILED|
|26||02/07/2011 E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA-TRIPLE T)|
|27||02/08/2011 RECEIVED $25 SURCHARGE FOR ATB (RECEIPT #20175).|
|28||02/11/2011 RECEIVED 7 COPIES OF ATB FROM CENTRAL DUPLICATING.|
|29||02/11/2011 RECEIVED 6 COPIES OF ATA FROM CENTRAL DUPLICATING.|
|30||03/07/2011 APPELLEE BRIEF (Lario Oil) (e-filed)|
|31||03/07/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (AEB - Lario Oil)|
|32||03/08/2011 Received $25 surcharge for AEB of Lario Oil (Receipt #20213)|
|33||03/10/2011 Received 7 copies of AEB from CSD|
|34||03/18/2011 REPLY BRIEF (Triple T & Navarro) (e-filed)|
|35||03/18/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (RYB of Triple T & Navarro)|
|36||03/18/2011 REPLY BRIEF (Brigham Oil) (e-filed)|
|37||03/18/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (RYB of Brigham Oil)|
|38||03/22/2011 Received 7 copies of RYB (Triple T & Navarro) from CSD|
|39||03/22/2011 Received 7 copies of RYB (Brigham Oil) from CSD|
|40||03/22/2011 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|41||04/06/2011 APPEARANCES: Jon Bogner, Sara K. Sorenson;Dennis E. Johnson|
|42||04/06/2011 ARGUED: Bogner, Sorenson; Johnson|
|43||04/06/2011 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|44||08/15/2011 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|45||08/15/2011 UNANIMOUS OPINION: VandeWalle, Gerald W.|
|46||08/15/2011 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellees|
|47||08/15/2011 Judgment Sent to Parties|
|49||09/12/2011 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|