Wenco v. EOG Resources, Inc.

20120194 Wenco, a North Dakota Limited
Partnership, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
EOG Resources, Inc., QEP Energy
Company, John Doe Defendants 1-10,
claiming any estate or interest in,
or lien or encumbrance upon, the
property described in numbered
paragraph 29 of the complaint, Defendants
---------------
EOG Resources, Inc., QEP Energy
Company, Appellees

Appeal from: District Court, Northwest Judicial District, Mountrail County
Judge Todd L. Cresap
Nature of Action: Real Property
Counsel:
Appellant: David J. Hogue
Appellee: Lawrence Bender
Appellee: Amy Lynn De Kok
Appellee: John W. Morrison Jr.
Appellee: Wade Charles Mann
Appellee: Jillian Rene Rupnow
Term: 09/2012   Argument: 09/05/2012  2:45pm
ND cite: 2012 ND 219
NW cite: 822 N.W.2d 701

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
Whether the district court correctly concluded that the mineral interest owned by defendant QEP Energy Company ("QEP") is unburdened by a royalty assignment that was executed and recorded before QEP (and its predecessors in interest) acquired title to its mineral interest. Stated another way, the sole issue raised by appellant Wenco is whether the district court correctly concluded that only Wenco's mineral estate is burdened by the royalty assignment executed and recorded prior to Wenco's and QEP's acquisition of their respective mineral interests.
Wenco's position: The district court erred. The Duhig rule is not applicable to the facts of this case nor is the majority opinion of this Court in Acoma Oil Corp. v. Wilson, 471 N.W.2d 476 (N.D. 1991).
Whether the district court correctly concluded Wenco lacked standing to assert QEP waived its right to deny the Dockter Royalty Conveyance burdened only the Wenco mineral interest.
Wenco's Position: The district court erred. Wenco possesses standing to assert QEP's waiver of its right.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I.Was EOG entitled to summary judgment dismissing Wenco's quiet title claim?
II.Did Wenco have Standing to Assert that QEP Waived Its Right to Contest the Original Division Order?
III.Did QEP Waive Its Right to Contest the Original Division Order?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I.Whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment applying the Duhig rule, as applied in Acoma Oil Corporation v. Wilson, 471 N.W.2d 476 (N.D.1991), and the interest of QEP Energy Company ("QEP") is not burdened by the royalty interest owned by Northwestern National Bank.
II.Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment holding that QEP did not waive its right to a one-half mineral interest unburdened by the outstanding royalty interest.
Add Docket 20120194 RSS Add Docket 20120194 RSS

Docket entries:
104/16/2012 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 04/11/2012
205/08/2012 ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL (ENTRY NOS.1-93)
305/21/2012 APPELLANT BRIEF
405/21/2012 E-FILED BRIEF
505/21/2012 APPELLANT APPENDIX
605/21/2012 E-FILED APPENDIX
705/22/2012 Received $208.50 surcharge for ATB & ATA (Receipt #21193)
805/24/2012 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF of QEP Energy Company
905/24/2012 E-FILED MOTION
1005/24/2012 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 07/02/2012
1105/30/2012 Rec'd 7 copies of ATB from CSD
1205/30/2012 Received 6 copies of ATA from CSD
1306/20/2012 APPELLEE BRIEF (EOG)
1406/20/2012 E-FILED BRIEF
1506/20/2012 APPELLEE APPENDIX (EOG)
1606/21/2012 Received $25 surcharge (Receipt #21228)
1706/22/2012 Received 7 copies of AEB from CSD
1806/22/2012 Received 6 copies of AEA from CSD
1907/02/2012 APPELLEE BRIEF (QEP)
2007/02/2012 E-FILED BRIEF
2107/03/2012 Received corrected (nonsubstantive) electronic Brief of Appellee QEP
2207/05/2012 Received $25 surcharge for AEB of QEP (Receipt #21241)
2307/09/2012 Received 7 copies of AEB from CSD
2407/10/2012 MOT. EXT/TIME REPLY BRIEF
2507/10/2012 E-FILED MOTION
2607/11/2012 ACTION BY CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK. Granted: 07/31/2012
2708/07/2012 REPLY BRIEF (pdf)
2808/07/2012 E-FILED BRIEF
2908/09/2012 Received 7 copies of RYB from CSD
3008/09/2012 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
3109/05/2012 APPEARANCES: David J. Hogue; Amy L. DeKok; John W. Morrison, Jr.
3209/05/2012 ARGUED: David J. Hogue; Amy L. DeKok; John W. Morrison, Jr.
3309/05/2012 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
3410/23/2012 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
3510/23/2012 SPLIT OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning
3610/23/2012 Concurring in the result: VandeWalle, Gerald W.: CONCUR
3710/23/2012 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee
3810/24/2012 Order/Judgment Sent to Parties
3911/29/2012 MANDATE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 11/28/2014