Barton Land Servs., Inc. v. Seeco, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. CV–12–742.,CV–12–742. |
| Citation | 428 S.W.3d 430,2013 Ark. 231 |
| Parties | BARTON LAND SERVICES, INC.; Martha Thomas; Dee Thomas; Theresa L. Townsend; Tanya Thomas; Guenvear Ward McKim; Bobby R. Ward; Nina Ward Johnston; Nina Ward Johnston by her Attorney–in–Fact, Bobby R. Ward; Frankie A. Ward Glover; Frankie A. Ward Glover by his Attorney–in–fact, Bobby R. Ward, Appellants v. SEECO, INC; Donald Lea Stanton; Linda Stanton; Janet Stanton Farrar; Cheryl Stanton Hamlin; Alan Stanton; Brian J. Galka; Max Foster; Rachel Galka; Anne Stanton Yust; David Taggart; Jean Stanton; Sandra Stanton Strickland; Daniel Thomas Stanton; James Tagg, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Stephen C. Gardner, P.A., by: Stephen C. Gardner, Russellville, for appellant Ward Group.
Peel Law Firm, P.A., Russellville, by: Richard L. Peel and Robert M. Veach, for appellant Barton Group.
Perkins & Trotter, PLLC, Little Rock, by: G. Alan Perkins and Kimberly D. Logue, for appellee Seeco, Inc.
Morgan Law Firm, P.A., by: M. Edward Morgan, Clinton, for appellee Stanton Group.
Appellants Barton Land Services, Inc., and the heirs, successors, and assigns of grantors of a mineral deed appeal the Van Buren County Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees, SEECO, Inc., and the heirs, successors, and assigns of the deed's grantee. For reversal, appellants argue that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment and in finding that the deed conveyed one hundred percent of the grantors' mineral interest in three tracts of land in Van Buren County. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1–2(b)(5) (2012), as this appeal presents a significant issue needing clarification or development of the law. We affirm.
In the 1920s and early 1930s, J.S. Martin, individually and as trustee for a group of apparent investors, leased minerals in the region now known as the Fayetteville Shale. Martin allegedly later attempted to buy an interest in the minerals beneath the land of these surface owners and lessors. In 1927, R.F. Thomas executed two oil-and-gas leases to J.S. Martin. On June 25, 1929, Thomas and his wife, Amy Thomas, as grantors, executed a warranty deed and an oil, gas, and mineral royalty instrument conveying a mineral interest to Martin, as grantee.
The Thomas–Martin mineral deed (“1929 mineral deed”) is a blank-form deed. However, the portion of the mineral deed pertaining to the percentage of the mineral interest to be conveyed was left blank. The language of the deed states in part as follows:
[R.F. Thomas and Amy Thomas] ... do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the said J.S. Martin Trustee and to his heirs and assigns forever, an undivided –––– interest in and to all the oil, gas and other minerals, in, under and upon the following described lands lying within the County of Van Buren and State of Arkansas, to-wit: [description of the three tracts] containing 221.35 acres, more or less.Subsequent to the 1929 mineral deed, Amy Thomas, then a widow, conveyed the surface of the three tracts, excepting from the conveyance “all oil, gas and other minerals,” to Cleatus A. Owens and Lorene Owens and Carl and Viller Stacks. From 1929 to the present, the land passed through many hands.
Appellee SEECO owned oil-and-gas leases and possessed rights, pursuant to the orders of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission (“AOGC”), authorizing it to explore for and develop minerals from the three tracts of land in Van Buren County. On January 10, 2011, SEECO filed an interpleader action to determine ownership of the oil, gas, and minerals in the land. In its complaint, SEECO alleged that it owned oil-and-gas leases from the numerous parties and from the integration of mineral interests by the AOGC and that it was the authorized party to explore for and develop minerals from the land. In its prayer for relief, SEECO requested that the circuit court quiet and confirm title in the appellees and that the court find that three limited-warranty deeds, arising from historic mineral-tax forfeitures and issued in 2005 from the Commissioner to the Lewises, be declared void.
After the parties answered SEECO's complaint, seven motions for summary judgment were filed in the case by separate defendants. Those separate defendants consisted of (1) the “Lott Group,” which included Brian E. Quarles; James J. Restor; Robert Wade Steinbriede; Mary Walcott Steinbriede; Hogeye Investments, LLC; Goldfinger, LLC; Heti, LLC; Melton Oil & Gas, LLC; Cross Creek Resources, LLC; WGC I, LLC; Spawn Group, LLC; BOCHAP, LLC; AHL, LLC; W & W I, LLC; White Hawk Exploration, LLC; BGW I, LLC; Handwerker Clean Energy, LLC; Harry H. Lott, Jr.; and Renelda Lott; (2) the “Stanton Group,” which included Donald Lea Stanton; Linda Stanton; Janet Stanton Farrar; Cheryl Stanton Hamlin; Alan Stanton; Brian J. Galka; Max Foster; Rachel Galka; Anne Stanton Yust; David Taggart; Jean Stanton; Sandra Stanton Strickland; Daniel Thomas Stanton; James Taggart; Marcia Taggart Smoke; and Linda Taggart Nielson; (3) the “Ward Group,” which included Bobby R. Ward; Nina Ward Johnston; Bobby R. Ward, attorney-in-fact for Nina Ward Johnston; Frankie A. Ward Glover; Bobby R. Ward, attorney-in-fact for Frankie A. Ward Glover; John F. Hafner & Associates; and Xisto Properties, LLC; (4) A.J. and Doris Lewis; (5) the “Barton Group,” which included Barton Land Services, Inc.; Martha Thomas; Dee Thomas; Guenvear Ward McKim; Theresa L. Townsend; and Tanya Thomas; and (6) intervenor Fayetteville Shale Resources, LLC. SEECO also filed a motion for partial summary judgment. In their motions for summary judgment, SEECO and Martin's heirs, the Lott Group and the Stanton Group, argued that the 1929 mineral deed conveyed one hundred percent of the mineral interest to J.S. Martin. However, the Thomases' heirs, known as the Ward Group and the Barton Group, and Fayetteville Shale Resources asserted that the deed was void because the Thomases never specified what percentage of the minerals they intended to convey.
On March 27, 2012, the circuit court conducted a hearing on the seven cross-motions for summary judgment and subsequently entered an order, granting summary-judgment motions filed by the Lott Group, the Stanton Group, and SEECO and denying summary-judgment motions filed by the Ward Group, the Lewises, the Barton Group, and Fayetteville Shale. Specifically, the circuit court ruled that the 1929 mineral deed, even with a blank left empty in the granting clause, conveyed one hundred percent of the mineral interest. The court also ruled that the Lewises' tax deeds were invalid and that the Lewises had perfected title to the mineral-interest rights by adverse possession.
On June 6, 2012, the circuit court entered a final order regarding the ownership of the oil, gas, and minerals. The order states in part as follows:
3. Title in and to 100% of the mineral interests in Tract 1, Tract 3, and Tract 4, including without limitation oil and natural gas, are hereby quieted and confirmed in the heirs, successors, and assigns of J.S. Martin, the grantee of that certain Mineral Deed from R.F. Thomas and Amy Thomas, Grantors, to J.S. Martin Trustee, Grantee
....
4. Title in and to 100% of the surface estate and the mineral interests in Tract 2, including without limitation oil and natural gas, are hereby quieted and confirmed in Separate Defendants, A.J. Lewis and Doris Lewis.
5. The limited warranty deeds, arising from historic mineral tax forfeitures, issued in 2005 from the Commissioner of State Lands to A.J. Lewis and Doris Lewis, H/W, each for a 1/4 mineral interest, that purport to convey mineral interests in Tracts 1, 2, or 3 ... are void.
Appellants, known as the Barton Group, the Ward Group, and Fayetteville Shale, timely filed a joint notice of appeal and amended joint notice of appeal. Appellees include the Stanton Group as Martin's heirs and successors in interest, and SEECO.1 From the circuit court's May 18 and June 6, 2012 orders, appellants now bring their appeal.
For the sole point on appeal, appellants argue that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees by construing the 1929 mineral deed to convey one hundred percent of the mineral interest to appellees. Specifically, appellants contend that the 1929 mineral deed was void because the description of the interest was so vague that it was unenforceable. In support of their position, appellants emphasize the language stating that the grantors conveyed “an undivided –––– interest in and to all of the oil, gas and other minerals” without filling in the blank and to specify the amount of interest to be conveyed. Further, appellants assert that this court should rely on Arkansas caselaw in its review. Appellants maintain that the circuit court erred in relying on Beaton v. Pure Oil Co., 483 P.2d 1145 (Okla.1971), as the basis for granting summary judgment.
In response, SEECO argues that the circuit court properly found that the 1929 mineral deed effectively conveyed one hundred percent of the mineral interest at issue. SEECO asserts that Arkansas authority supports the circuit court's interpretation of the 1929 mineral deed and that the circuit court properly found the reasoning of Beaton to be persuasive. Similarly, the Stanton Group argues that the circuit court did not err in its ruling because the 1929 mineral deed was not void and contained a certain description of the interest to be conveyed; that Arkansas law supported the circuit court's decision; that the circuit court properly relied on Beaton; and that subsequent oil-and-gas leases did not impact the scope of the 1929 mineral-interest conveyance.
Upon reviewing a circuit court's decision on a summary-judgment motion, we typically would examine the record to determine if genuine issues of material fact exist. Progressive Halcyon Ins. v. Saldivar, 2013 Ark. 69, 2013 WL 655234. However, in the present case, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ark. Lottery Comm'n v. Alpha Mktg.
... ... , effectively blocking access to their land. In dismissing the case, the court relied on the ... court); see also Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. State, 312 Ark. 481, 488, 850 S.W.2d 847, ... See Beverly Enters.–Arkansas, Inc. v. Thomas, 370 Ark. 310, 259 S.W.3d 445 (2007) ... ...
-
Harris v. Crawford Cnty. Bd. of Election Comm'rs
...interpretation that causes it to be redundant or to have no consequence. Id. at 174; see also Barton Land Servs., Inc. v. SEECO, Inc. , 2013 Ark. 231, at 8, 428 S.W.3d 430, 436 ("We construe the statute so that no word is left void, superfluous, or insignificant, and we give meaning and eff......
-
Stevens v. Seeco, Inc.
...as expressed by the deed's language, when doing so is not contrary to settled principles of law. Barton Land Servs., Inc. v. SEECO, Inc., 2013 Ark. 231, at 7, 428 S.W.3d 430, 435. We gather the parties' intentions from thePage 6deed as a whole, not from some particular clause alone. Id. To ......
-
Harris v. Crawford Cnty. Bd. of Election Comm'rs
... ... Id. at 174; see also Barton Land Servs., Inc. v ... SEECO, Inc. , 2013 Ark ... ...
-
LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN 2013 AFFECTING THE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
...§ 26-26-1308(a) . [20] Ark. Code Ann. § 14-15-404 . [21] 2013 Ark 286, 2013 WL 3239042. [22] 2012 Ark. App. 4, 2012, 2012 WL 11458. [23] 2013 Ark. 231, 2013 WL 2361043. [24] Ark. Code Ann. § 18-12-105. [25] 2013 Ark. App. 379, 2013 WL 2457288. [26] 2012 WL 113266 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 13, 2012). ......