Brigham Oil v. Lario Oil

20100211 Brigham Oil and Gas, L.P., Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Lario Oil & Gas Company Defendant and Appellee
and
Murex Petroleum Corporation, Defendant
____________________________

Lario Oil & Gas Company, Third Party Plaintiff and Appellees
v.
Jon Avery, Third Party Defendant
and
Georgette O. Navarro and
The Triple T, Inc., Third Party Defendants
Intervenors and Appellants

Appeal from: District Court, Northwest Judicial District, Mountrail County
Judge William W. McLees
Nature of Action: Oil, Gas and Minerals
Counsel:
Appellant: Jon Bogner
Appellee: Dennis Edward Johnson
Term: 04/2011   Argument: 04/06/2011  1:30pm
ND cite: 2011 ND 154
NW cite: 801 N.W.2d 677

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Listen to recording of oral argument in RM format
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.

Issues: 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 Add Docket 20100211 RSS

Docket entries:
107/07/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 06/28/2010
207/07/2010 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 06/28/2010
307/13/2010 Acknowledgment of OTR & RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 08/17/2010
408/04/2010 TRANSCRIPT DATED NOVEMBER 17, 2009, & C.O.S.
508/04/2010 DISK-TRA (11/17/09) E-MAILED
608/17/2010 RECORD ON APPEAL
709/02/2010 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF
809/02/2010 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Motion for extension of time of Appellant's Brief). Granted: 10/13/2010
909/22/2010 MOTION FOR ORDER FOR TEMPORARY REMAND
1009/22/2010 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Granted
1109/22/2010 ORDER OF REMAND
1209/22/2010 Order of Remand Sent to Parties
1301/03/2011 Refiled Record on Appeal after Remand
1401/04/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (sua sponte) (reset due to remand)
1501/04/2011 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT) (sua sponte - reset after remand). Granted: 02/07/2011
1601/12/2011 1st Supplemental Clerk's Certifcate of Record dated January 11, 2011 (Entry Nos. 52 & 53).
1701/13/2011 This case is consolidated w/20110016. Make all entries in this case except DIS & MAN.
1801/21/2011 Lario Oil's counterclaim dismissed by District Court
1901/25/2011 2nd Supplemental Clerk's Certificate of Record dated January 21, 2011. (entry nos. 57 - 60)
2002/03/2011 APPELLANT BRIEF (Brigham Oil and Gas, L.P.)
2102/03/2011 APPELLANT APPENDIX
2202/03/2011 DISK - ATA (e-mail)
2302/07/2011 APPELLANT BRIEF-TRIPLE T (E-FILED) PDF
2402/07/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (TRIPLE T) PDF
2502/07/2011 APPELLANT APPENDIX (TRIPLE T) E-FILED
2602/07/2011 E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA-TRIPLE T)
2702/08/2011 RECEIVED $25 SURCHARGE FOR ATB (RECEIPT #20175).
2802/11/2011 RECEIVED 7 COPIES OF ATB FROM CENTRAL DUPLICATING.
2902/11/2011 RECEIVED 6 COPIES OF ATA FROM CENTRAL DUPLICATING.
3003/07/2011 APPELLEE BRIEF (Lario Oil) (e-filed)
3103/07/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (AEB - Lario Oil)
3203/08/2011 Received $25 surcharge for AEB of Lario Oil (Receipt #20213)
3303/10/2011 Received 7 copies of AEB from CSD
3403/18/2011 REPLY BRIEF (Triple T & Navarro) (e-filed)
3503/18/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (RYB of Triple T & Navarro)
3603/18/2011 REPLY BRIEF (Brigham Oil) (e-filed)
3703/18/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (RYB of Brigham Oil)
3803/22/2011 Received 7 copies of RYB (Triple T & Navarro) from CSD
3903/22/2011 Received 7 copies of RYB (Brigham Oil) from CSD
4003/22/2011 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
4104/06/2011 APPEARANCES: Jon Bogner, Sara K. Sorenson;Dennis E. Johnson
4204/06/2011 ARGUED: Bogner, Sorenson; Johnson
4304/06/2011 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
4408/15/2011 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
4508/15/2011 UNANIMOUS OPINION: VandeWalle, Gerald W.
4608/15/2011 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellees
4708/15/2011 Judgment Sent to Parties
4809/06/2011 MANDATE
4909/12/2011 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 07/25/2014