Ultra Res., Inc. v. Hartman

Decision Date19 March 2015
Docket NumberS–14–0142,S–14–0007.,Nos. S–14–0006,S–14–0141,S–14–0008,s. S–14–0006
PartiesULTRA RESOURCES, INC., a Wyoming Corporation, Appellant (Defendant), v. Doyle and Margaret M. HARTMAN, John H. Hendrix Corporation, Michael L. Klein and Jeanne Klein, Ronnie H. Westbrook and Karen Westbrook, Appellees (Plaintiffs). Swepi LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, Appellant (Defendant), v. Doyle and Margaret M. Hartman, John H. Hendrix Corporation, Michael L. Klein and Jeanne Klein, Ronnie H. Westbrook and Karen Westbrook, Appellees (Plaintiffs). Lance Oil & Gas Company, a Delaware Corporation, Appellant (Defendant), v. Doyle and Margaret M. Hartman, John H. Hendrix Corporation, Michael L. Klein and Jeanne Klein, Ronnie H. Westbrook and Karen Westbrook, Appellees (Plaintiffs).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

Representing Appellant Ultra Resources, Inc.: Douglas J. Mason of Mason & Mason, P.C., Pinedale, Wyoming; Michael J. Gallagher, Shannon Wells Stevenson, Natalie West of Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, Denver, Colorado. Argument by Ms. Stevenson.

Representing Appellant Swepi, LP: Patrick J. Murphy, Erica Day of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, Casper, Wyoming; Phillip D. Barber of Phillip D. Barber, P.C., Denver, Colorado. Argument by Mr. Murphy.

Representing Appellant Lance Oil & Gas Company: Paul J. Hickey of Hickey & Evans, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Ezekiel James Williams of Lewis Bess Williams & Weese, P.C., Denver, Colorado.

Representing Appellees: John A. Masterson, Michael J. Sullivan of Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, Casper, Wyoming; Jake Eugene Gallegos, Michael J. Condon of the Gallegos Law Firm, P.C., Santa Fe, New Mexico. Argument by Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Condon.

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, KITE, DAVIS, JJ., and GOLDEN, J., retired.

Opinion

KITE, Justice.

[¶ 1] Appellants/Defendants Ultra Resources, Inc. (Ultra), SWEPI, LP (SWEPI) and Lance Oil & Gas Co. (Lance Oil)1 appeal from the district court's orders after Appellees/Plaintiffs Doyle and Margaret Hartman, et. al. filed a motion to enforce a judgment and net profits contract (NPC) pertaining to oil and gas leases in Sublette County, Wyoming.2 The defendants claim the district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the issues presented in the plaintiffs' motion to enforce. They also contest the district court's decision on the merits of the motion to enforce and its award of attorney fees to the plaintiffs. We conclude the district court had jurisdiction over the issues presented, it correctly interpreted its prior judgment and the defendants' accounting responsibilities under the NPC, and it properly granted the plaintiffs' request for attorney fees, although we do order a minor revision of the award.

[¶ 2] We affirm with revision.

ISSUES

[¶ 3] The issues3 on appeal are:

1. Did the district court have jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the judgment and the NPC?

2. Did the district court err by ruling that defendants were not entitled to credit for expenses which were invoiced prior to 2007 because they should have been charged against the net profits interest (NPI) during the time period at issue in the trial?

3. Did the district court err by ruling that, under the terms of the NPC, expenses had to be charged against the NPI in the month following the month the expenses were invoiced?

4. Did the district court err by rejecting the defendants' argument, based upon the principles of estoppel and finality, that the plaintiffs had agreed and the district court had previously ordered expenses would be charged against the NPI when billed to other working interest owners in joint interest bills (JIBs)?

5. Did the district court err in awarding attorney fees to plaintiffs?

FACTS

[¶ 4] The parties own interests in certain oil and gas leases in Sublette County, Wyoming. Ultra Resources, Inc. v. Hartman, 2010 WY 36, ¶ 10, 226 P.3d 889, 902 (Wyo.2010) (Ultra I ). Defendants Ultra and SWEPI4 are working interest owners and operators of the leases, defendant Lance Oil is a non-operator working interest owner, and the plaintiffs own a NPI in the leases. Id., ¶ 11, 226 P.3d at 902–03. In the underlying litigation, the district court entered a declaratory judgment recognizing the existence of the NPI and delineating the operators' NPC accounting responsibilities. It also granted a monetary judgment against the defendants for the amount due to the plaintiffs for the NPI through December 31, 2006. Id., ¶¶ 14, 17, 226 P.3d at 903–04. With a few exceptions not relevant here, we affirmed the district court's decision in Ultra I. After our mandate issued, the district court entered an amended judgment and the defendants paid the monetary judgment.

[¶ 5] In July 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce judgment, claiming the defendants were not properly accounting to them as required by the earlier declaratory judgment and the NPC. The defendants asserted the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the matters raised in the plaintiffs' motion to enforce and the plaintiffs should have commenced a new action instead. The district court concluded it had jurisdiction and issued a number of orders on the merits of the plaintiffs' motion to enforce.

[¶ 6] The primary order at issue here pertains to the defendants' attempts to charge pre–2007 expenses to calculate the NPI starting January 1, 2007. The district court ruled that the NPI had been fully calculated through December 31, 2006 at trial, and the NPC required expenses to be charged to the NPI in the month following the date the expenses were invoiced. Consequently, the district court refused to allow the defendants to charge expenses invoiced prior to January 1, 2007, when calculating the 2007 NPI. The district court also concluded the plaintiffs were the prevailing parties in the enforcement proceeding pursuant to the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act (WRPA), segregation of the attorney fees between claims was not required and the operating defendants were required to pay the plaintiffs' attorney fees.

[¶ 7] The defendants appealed the district court's decisions on the merits and its order on attorney fees. We will provide additional factual background as relevant to the issues discussed below.

DISCUSSION
1. Jurisdiction

[¶ 8] The defendants maintain the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to decide the issues raised in the plaintiffs' motion to enforce and the plaintiffs should have commenced a new civil action to have the matters heard. “The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. Madsen v. Bd. of Trustees of Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater County, 2011 WY 36, ¶ 9, 248 P.3d 1151, 1153 (Wyo.2011), citing Cantrell v. Sweetwater County School Dist. No. 2, 2006 WY 57, ¶ 6, 133 P.3d 983, 985 (Wyo.2006). See also Stephens v. Lavitt, 2010 WY 129, ¶ 9, 239 P.3d 634, 637 (Wyo.2010).

[¶ 9] In Ultra I, the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our decision. The defendants argue the district court's jurisdiction over the action ended when the district court entered an amended judgment consistent with our mandate and they satisfied the monetary judgment. Thus, they claim the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the issues raised in the plaintiffs' motion to enforce. The two aspects of the district court's order challenged by the defendants are the district court's exclusion of the pre–2007 expenses from the 2007 NPI accounting and its interpretation of the NPC deadlines for the operators' expense reports.5

[¶ 10] Courts have inherent power to enforce their own judgments. In Hurd v. Nelson, 714 P.2d 767 (Wyo.1986), we affirmed the district court's post-judgment order enforcing a property settlement in a divorce action. Speaking to the district court's enforcement powers, we stated:

Courts have inherent power to enforce their own judgments and should see to it that such judgments are enforced when they are called upon to do so. To deprive a court of power to execute its judgments is to impair its jurisdiction, and the general rule is that every court having jurisdiction to render a particular judgment has inherent power and authority to enforce it and to exercise equitable control over such enforcement. Thus, a court of equity has inherent power to enforce its decrees. A court of equity retains and possesses the power to control the manner of the execution of its decree, and has the inherent right to modify, by a subsequent order, the manner in which it shall be enforced. * * * ” 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 898, p. 1032 (1969).

Id. at 771.

[¶ 11] A court also has inherent power to interpret its judgments and clarify ambiguous terms. 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments § 73 (2015) states:

Trial courts have the inherent authority to interpret and clarify their judgments. The mere interpretation of a judgment involves no challenge of its validity, or an attack on it, and a clarification of an ambiguous judgment is not a modification or amendment of the judgment. An order clarifying a judgment explains or refines rights already given, and it neither grants new rights nor extends old ones. Unlike a modification, amendment, or alteration to a judgment, which must be accomplished under the court rules or some other exception to preclusion, a clarification of a judgment can be accomplished at any time.

(footnotes omitted). See also Ladwig v. Chatters, 623 N.W.2d 266 (Minn.Ct.App.2001) (trial court had jurisdiction to interpret, clarify and enforce its earlier judgment).

[¶ 12] In Zaloudek v. Zaloudek, 2010 WY 169, 245 P.3d 336 (Wyo.2010), we addressed the husband's post-judgment motions to clarify his obligations under the property division provisions of a divorce decree and to extend his deadline for compliance with a cash award to the wife. The district court denied the husband's motions, entered a judgment in favor of the wife for interest accrued since the original decree and ordered the husband to satisfy the judgment within five days. I...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Gill v. Lockhart
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 6 Julio 2022
    ...own judgments and should see to it that such judgments are enforced when they are called upon to do so." Ultra Res., Inc. v. Hartman , 2015 WY 40, ¶ 10, 346 P.3d 880, 886–87 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting Hurd v. Nelson , 714 P.2d 767, 771 (Wyo. 1986) ). Where the terms of a judgment are ambiguous or......
  • Lokey v. Irwin
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 17 Mayo 2016
    ...appropriate post-judgment motions authorized by the rules. See 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 358 (updated April 2016) ; see also Ultra Res., Inc. v. Hartman, 2015 WY 40, ¶ 14, 346 P.3d 880, 887 (Wyo.2015) (the inherent power of a district court to enforce its own orders is limited, and a court must......
  • Estate of Weeks v. Weeks-Rohner
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 27 Septiembre 2018
    ...to enforce its orders as the grounds for issuing this directive. A court has inherent power to enforce its own judgments. Ultra Res., Inc. v. Hartman , 2015 WY 40, ¶ 11, 346 P.3d 880, 886 (Wyo. 2015) ; see also McAdam v. McAdam , 2014 WY 123, ¶ 13, 335 P.3d 466, 470 (Wyo. 2014) (district co......
  • In re Lon V. Smith Found., Non-Profit Corp.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 10 Octubre 2017
    ...each party to pay its own attorney fees unless there is an express contractual or statutory authority for an award of fees. Ultra Res., Inc. v. Hartman , 2015 WY 40, ¶ 71, 346 P.3d 880, 903 (Wyo. 2015) ( Ultra II ). The attorney fee provision in the WRPA provides: § 30-5-303. Penalty for pr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT