Bennion v. Pennzoil Co., 910099
| Decision Date | 30 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 910099,910099 |
| Citation | 826 P.2d 137 |
| Parties | Sam H. BENNION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PENNZOIL COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, and Proven Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Peter Stirba, Barbara Zimmerman, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.
Thomas W. Bachtell, Michael F. Jones, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellees.
In this case, we again consider the certifiability of an order declared final for purposes of appeal under rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff Sam Bennion is a nonconsenting interest owner of unleased fractional mineral interests in fourteen oil and gas wells located in Uintah and Duchesne Counties, Utah. As owner, Bennion is entitled to a proportionate share of oil, gas, and natural gas liquids after the wells have reached pay-out status. Defendant Pennzoil has operated those wells since 1985.
Defendant Proven Properties had an asset sales agreement with Chevron Oil under which Chevron agreed to sell to Proven Properties rights incident to the leases and wells, whether operated or not, but excluded accounts receivable for all periods before December 1, 1985.
Bennion sued Pennzoil and Proven Properties, claiming that Pennzoil had offset drilling costs against Bennion for the excluded period and even for costs it did not incur; had concealed the existence and effect of the Chevron contract from Bennion during the many instances Bennion inquired about the propriety of the costs; and when Bennion learned of the contract and confronted Pennzoil, had refused to render an accounting.
Bennion's complaint consisted of claims for wrongful appropriation and conversion of oil and gas royalties, breach of fiduciary duty, accounting by Pennzoil, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The trial court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation. That judgment was certified as final under rule 54(b) and constitutes the present appeal.
Following this court's recent decision in Kennecott Corp. v. Utah State Tax Commission, 814 P.2d 1099 (Utah 1991), and the evolving standard of finality first articulated there, the court requested that the parties brief and argue the jurisdictional issue presented by the certification.
Bennion took the position that the facts of the certified portion of the judgment differed from those remaining in the trial court. The fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims focused on defendants' sales agreement with Chevron. Defendants' misconduct under that agreement was substantially different from the misconduct reflected in the causes remaining before the trial court.
Defendants countered that the operative facts in the appealed portion were the same as those remaining in the trial court, because all allegations rely on plaintiff's claim that Pennzoil failed to render a proper accounting on Bennion's entitlement to production proceeds. If the trial court were to rule that Bennion had been paid his full share of the production proceeds, the claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation would be barred by res judicata and considered moot, thus satisfying the standard of factual overlap set by Kennecott. According to defendants, the Chevron contract was but a minor variation on the operative facts underlying all claims.
We agree with defendants and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
In Kennecott, this court revisited the requirements for proper certification under rule 54(b) as they were first addressed in Pate v. Marathon Steel Co., 692 P.2d 765 (Utah 1984), and Little v. Mitchell, 604 P.2d 918 (Utah 1979). In Kennecott, we examined in depth the question of what constitutes a "separate claim." 814 P.2d at 1103. We concluded that certification...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co.
...of the breach of contract action moot.4 Jensen v. Eddy, 30 Utah 2d 154, 156, 514 P.2d 1142, 1143 (1973); see also Bennion v. Pennzoil Co., 826 P.2d 137, 138 (Utah 1992). III. BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR ¶ 27 The next issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly granted ......
-
STATE EX REL. ALLSTATE INS. v. Gaughan
...had to be made even though Rule 52(a) did not require findings for a ruling on a writ ne exeat republica. See also, Bennion v. Pennzoil Co., 826 P.2d 137 (Utah 1992) (holding that in order to facilitate appellate court's review of judgment certified as final for purposes of interlocutory ap......
-
Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch P'ship
...mining claims, it has not been used for mining and no minerals have been extracted therefrom.” (emphases added)); Bennion v. Pennzoil Co., 826 P.2d 137, 137 (Utah 1992) (characterizing oil and gas rights as “mineral interests”); Cowling v. Bd. of Oil, Gas & Mining, Dep't of Natural Resource......
-
Copper Hills Custom Homes, LLC v. Countrywide Bank, FSB
...Kennecott , 814 P.2d at 1104. Two of our decisions merit particular attention: Kennecott , 814 P.2d 1099, and Bennion v. Pennzoil Co. , 826 P.2d 137 (Utah 1992) (per curiam).¶ 18 In Kennecott , we carefully reviewed the merits of two competing "approaches to determining when a claim is sepa......
-
Case Summaries
...Appeals Dismissed Because Taken From Non-Final Judgment See Rule 54 (b) Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Bennion v. Pennzoil Co., 826 P.2d 137. American Savings v. Gibson, 839 P.2d 797. FMA Leasing Co. v. Citizens Bank, 823 P.2d 1065. See generally, Kennecott Copper Co. v. Utah Tax Comm., 814......