Antero Res. Corp. v. Irby

• Docket Number: 21-0119,21-0121
• Decision Date: 26 May 2022
• Parties: Antero Resources Corporation, Petitioner Below, Petitioner v. Matthew R. Irby, West Virginia Tax Commissioner, David Sponaugle, Assessor of Doddridge County, and The County Commission of Doddridge County, Respondents Below, Respondents and Antero Resources Corporation, Petitioner Below, Petitioner v. Matthew R. Irby, West Virginia Tax Commissioner, David Sponaugle, Assessor of Doddridge County, and The County Commission of Doddridge County, Respondents Below, Respondents
• Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia

1

Antero Resources Corporation, Petitioner Below, Petitioner v. Matthew R. Irby, West Virginia Tax Commissioner, David Sponaugle, Assessor of Doddridge County, and The County Commission of Doddridge County, Respondents Below, Respondents and Antero Resources Corporation, Petitioner Below, Petitioner v. Matthew R. Irby, West Virginia Tax Commissioner, David Sponaugle, Assessor of Doddridge County, and The County Commission of Doddridge County, Respondents Below, Respondents

Nos. 21-0119, 21-0121

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

May 26, 2022

(Doddridge County 17-AA-1), Doddridge County 17-AA-3)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Antero Resources Corporation ("Antero"), by counsel Lawrence D. Rosenberg, Ancil G. Ramey, and John J. Meadows appeals two orders of the Circuit Court of Doddridge County entered on January 13, 2021, denying its motions for relief from judgment, filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondents State Tax Commissioner Matthew R. Irby ("the state tax commissioner") and Assessor David Sponaugle ("the assessor") appear by counsel Katherine A. Schultz and Sean M. Whelan. Respondent County Commission of Doddridge County ("the county commission") appears by counsel R. Terrance Rodgers and Jonathon Nicol.

This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the order of the circuit court is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

In this case, we again revisit Steager v. Consol Energy, Inc., 242 W.Va. 209, 832 S.E.2d 135 (2019), in which we directed the circuit court to apply a formula equalizing operating expense deductions among natural gas producers in West Virginia. On remand, the tax commissioner's valuation revisions were complicated by the necessary consideration of dual-production wells (those producing both oil and natural gas). The tax commissioner ultimately adopted a formula prorating operating expenses based on the comparative percentages of oil and natural gas generated from each dual-production well. Antero challenged this formula on the ground that it fails to apply a "singular monetary average" to each well as directed by Consol Energy. The circuit court found, however, that Consol Energy-which addressed only the taxation of natural gas wells-did not preclude a prorated calculation to value dual-production wells. Describing the tax commissioner's re-valuation methods as "appropriate" and "reasonable" and "applied . . . fairly to those wells which produce both oil and natural gas[, ]" the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the tax commissioner, the assessor, and the county commission by orders entered on June 15, 2020.

Antero asserts five assignments of error related to the circuit court's orders. We find that the second, third, fourth, and fifth of Antero's assignments of error were fully address by our recent decision in Antero Res. Corp., v. Irby, No. 20-0530, 2022 WL 1055446 (W.Va. Apr. 8, 2022) (memorandum decision).^[1] We thus restrict our present consideration to Antero's first assignment of error, in which it argues that the circuit court erred when it declined to rule on Antero's motions for relief from judgment upon finding it lacked the jurisdiction to do so.

Antero filed its motions for relief from judgment on August 19, 2020, nearly two months after the circuit court's entry of summary judgment, and six days after Antero filed notices of appeal with this Court. Considering this timeline, resolution of Antero's assignment of error appears to be a straightforward endeavor. "Once this Court takes jurisdiction of a matter pending before a circuit court, the circuit court is without jurisdiction to enter further orders in the matter except by specific leave of this Court." Syl. Pt. 3, Fenton v. Miller, 182 W.Va. 731, 391 S.E.2d 744 (1990). Antero argues, however, that Rule 60(b) remedies "exist concurrently with and independently of the remedy of appeal" and the circuit court was thus free to consider this motion even after Antero filed its notice of appeal with this Court.

Antero frames its position using language that this Court has employed to explain that the time limitations for filing a notice of appeal are not tolled by the filing of a Rule 60(b) motion, and that the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is a final, appealable order. See Parkway Fuel Serv. v. Pauley, 159 W.Va. 216, 219, 220 S.E.2d 439, 441 (1975); Toler v. Shelton, 157 W.Va. 778, 784, 204 S.E.2d 85, 89 (1974). We have never employed this language to force a circuit court to undertake consideration of a dispute that is...