Lonesome Dove Petroleum, Inc. v. Nelson

990272 Lonesome Dove Petroleum, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellee
Charles Schreiner Nelson, Defendant and Appellant
Brett Boedecker,
Susanne Boedecker,
Michael Flinn, Phoenix
Energy Companies, Inc., Defendants on Crossclaim
and Appellees

Appeal from: District Court, Southwest Judicial District, Stark County
Judge Allan L. Schmalenberger
Nature of Action: Oil, Gas and Minerals
Appellant: Serkland Law Firm
Appellant: Marvin L. Kaiser
Appellee: Kubik, Bogner, Ridl & Selinger
Appellee: Zuger Kirmis & Smith
Term: 02/2000   Argument: 02/17/2000
ND cite: 2000 ND 104
NW cite: 611 N.W.2d 154

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
Did the trial court error when it made a finding of fact and conclusion of law that no breach of duty occurred to Nelson when he was excluded from meetings, not provided material documents to transactions and ultimately frozen out of the corporation.
The trial court clearly erred when it found a contract existed when there was no meeting of the minds.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Did LDP, Brett Boedecker, Susanne Boedecker, and/or Flinn breach any common law duty owed to Nelson as a shareholder in LDP?
2. Are the trial court's Findings of Fact that Lonesome Dove never acted illegally, fraudulently, unfairly prejudicially, or in bad faith clearly erroneous?
3. Is the trial court's Finding of Fact that Nelson and LDP reached an enforceable contract in December 1995 clearly erroneous?
4. Was the contract between Nelson and LDP required to be evidenced by a formal executed written purchase agreement?
5. Is the trial court's Finding of Fact that Nelson's attorney, Randy Fields, had actual or ostensible authority to bind Nelson clearly erroneous?
6. Are the trial court's Findings of Fact that there were no conditions precedent to the agreement reached between LDP and Nelson in December 1995 clearly erroneous?
7. Is the trial court's Finding of Fact that there was a reasonably definite and certain agreement between LDP and Nelson clearly erroneous?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Although Nelson has alleged and argued many different theories resulting in Phoenix's liability to him in his briefs throughout the course of the case, it appears that he has limited his appeal to the theory that Phoenix breached a duty owed to Nelson as a joint venturer or partner as set out in his Part IV PHOENIX ENERGY LIABILITY.
Add Docket 990272 RSS Add Docket 990272 RSS

Docket entries:
109/09/1999 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/08/1999
209/09/1999 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT (Kim Schwartz): 09/08/1999
309/20/1999 Filing fee Received
410/12/1999 RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL (Kimberly L. Schwartz, Court Reporter): 11/08/1999
610/29/1999 ACTION BY TRIAL COURT. Granted: 11/08/1999
711/08/1999 TRANSCRIPT DATED April 12-17, 1999 (2 Vols.)
811/15/1999 RECORD ON APPEAL (5 volumes) & Exhibits (which includes a video tape)
911/16/1999 DISKS (2) of TRA (4/12 through 4/17/99)
1012/18/1999 APPELLANT BRIEF
1212/29/1999 DISK - ATB
1312/29/1999 Cys of corrected TOA & pgs of ATB & TOC , docket sheet, NOA & Judgment for ATA - inserted
1401/14/2000 APPELLEE BRIEF (AE Lonesome Dove Petroleum, Inc., and AE's on Crossclaim Brett Boedecker, Susanne
1501/14/2000 Boedecker, and Michael Flinn)
1701/14/2000 DISK - AEB
1801/20/2000 APPELLEE BRIEF (on crossclaim, Phoenix Energy Co., Inc.)
1901/20/2000 APPELLEE APPENDIX (on crossclaim, Phoenix Energy Co. Inc.)
2001/20/2000 DISK - AEB on crossclaim Phoenix Energy Co.
2101/28/2000 REPLY BRIEF of Appellant to AEB of Lonesome Dove Petroleum, B. Boedecker, S. Boedecker & Flinn
2201/31/2000 DISK - RYB
2302/04/2000 REPLY BRIEF of Appellant to AEB of Phoenix Energy Companies, Inc.
2402/07/2000 DISK - ryb
2502/17/2000 APPEARANCES: Ronald H. McLean; Marvin L. Kaiser; Lyle W. Kirmis; Joseph H. Kubik
2602/17/2000 ARGUED: McLean; Kirmis (Vol. W; page 232)
2805/25/2000 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.
2905/25/2000 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee
3005/26/2000 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties
3106/16/2000 MANDATE
3301/31/2007 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 05/25/2018