A.G. Golden v. SM Energy Company
B. Land; Solveig K. Land; Howard D.
Armentrout and Delores K. Armentrout,
as Co-Trustees of the Armentrout Family
Revocable Living Trust dated May 24,
2005; Craig L. Bolenbaugh, and Joseph
Michael Bolenbaugh, Peter Francis
Bolenbaugh, and James Patrick
Bolenbaugh, as joint tenants; and Royalty
Interest Partnership, LP, Plaintiffs and Appellees
v.
SM Energy Company, a Delware
corporation, Defendant and Appellant
Judge David W. Nelson
| Appellee: | Lawrence Bender | |
| Appellant: | Harry Malcolm Pippin | |
| Appellant: | Lawyer not licensed in N.D. | |
| Appellant: | Lawyer not licensed in N.D. | |
| Appellee: | Amy Lynn De Kok | |
| Appellee: | Jillian Rene Rupnow |
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Listen to recording of oral argument in RM format
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
1.Did the District Court err in holding that:
a.the assignee expressly assumed the personal covenant by the 1993 agreement when this interpretation required disregarding relevant contractual language?
b.the assignee constructively assumed the personal covenant because it had record notice of that covenant, even if it did not expressly agree to assume it?
c.the assignee assumed the personal covenant by operation of North Dakota Century Code 9-03-25 because the assignee acquired the leases that were the subject of the 1970 agreement and, therefore, accepted the benefits of that agreement?
2. Did the District Court err in ordering Defendant-Appellant SM Energy Company ("SM") to pay retroactive royalties to compensate the Plaintiffs for underpayments, when SM's past payments were made pursuant to executed division orders?
3.Did the District Court err in granting the Plaintiffs relief as to unpleaded claims and unidentified properties?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I.Whether the district court was correct in holding that Tipperary, and then SM Energy, specifically assumed the rights and obligations of the Letter Agreement.
II.Whether the district court was correct in holding that SM Energy is bound by the Letter Agreement because it accepted the benefits of the same.
III.Whether the district court was correct in applying its analysis to all leases and lands specified in the Letter Agreement.
Add Docket 20120265 RSS