Bixler v. ORO MANAGEMENT
| Decision Date | 24 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-44,03-44 |
| Citation | 2004 WY 29,86 P.3d 843 |
| Parties | RON BIXLER, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. ORO MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.; and BRAD HYDE and ZANE PASMA, Appellees (Defendants). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Kenneth S. Cohen, Jackson, Wyoming.
Representing Appellees: Richard Mathey, Green River, Wyoming.
Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.
[¶ 1] Ron Bixler and Oro Management, LLC, (Oro) purchased property jointly and received a warranty deed as tenants in common. When Mr. Bixler sought partition of the property, Oro claimed the parties had a prior agreement that Mr. Bixler's tenancy in common did not extend to the mineral estate. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Oro holding the prior agreement, which preceded the warranty deed, was determinative of the parties' interests. However, the district court also held that agreement was ambiguous regarding what the parties intended by a "net mineral interest." After a trial on that issue, the district court held Mr. Bixler was only entitled to partition of the surface and gravel rights, and not the mineral estate. We reverse.
[¶ 2] Mr. Bixler frames the issues on appeal as follows:
[¶ 3] Pursuant to Rule 7.02 of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure, Oro presents no issues on appeal and, instead, addresses the issues raised by Mr. Bixler.
[¶ 4] In March 1999, Mr. Bixler and Zane Pasma, a member of Oro, met to discuss the joint purchase of 1700 acres of land in Atlantic City, Wyoming. The property included mining claims which the parties were interested in developing for gold. On April 25, 1999, Mr. Bixler and Mr. Pasma met again, this time in Rock Springs, Wyoming, to further discuss the purchase. Mr. Bixler's mother, Charlene Bixler, was present at the meeting and served as the "note taker." The parties referred to Ms. Bixler's notes as the "napkin agreement." The hand-written napkin agreement was signed by both parties and stated:
[¶ 5] On May 12, 1999, less than one month after the meeting in Rock Springs, the parties accepted and recorded a warranty deed drafted by the seller's attorney, which conveyed "the following described real estate" to Mr. Bixler and Oro as tenants in common. The legal description of the property consisted of a list of lode and placer mining claims. Both parties testified they intended to have additional documents prepared spelling out the details of their agreement. However, no such documents were ever prepared.
[¶ 6] The parties agreed Oro would be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits to mine the property and assume all costs related to the mining. Oro obtained some equipment and began limited preliminary work on developing a gold mine. However, two years later, Mr. Bixler became dissatisfied with the progress of the project. Also, Mr. Bixler learned that Oro had borrowed its share of the purchase price and encumbered the property with a mortgage to secure the loan. He claimed the mortgage violated the parties' agreement and damaged his interest in the property.
[¶ 7] On October 3, 2001, Mr. Bixler filed suit against Oro and its members seeking partition of the Atlantic City property. He alleged the parties had agreed that if no income was realized from the property within two years, the property would be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the parties. He also claimed damages for breach of contract and fraud as a result of the mortgage and conversion of gold and other unspecified minerals. Oro answered contending Mr. Bixler had no right to partition and they had agreed that if no income had been realized within five years they would "re-evaluate the highest and last use of the property." Oro also claimed the mortgage was not improper and no income had been produced from the property. After discovery was concluded, Oro filed a motion for summary judgment contending the parties' interests in the property were governed by the napkin agreement, and, as it interpreted that agreement, Mr. Bixler had no possessory right to the mineral estate and, thus, no right to partition it as a matter of law. Further, Oro claimed the breach of contract and fraud claims were moot because the mortgage had been released, and no conversion could be claimed because no minerals had been produced. Mr. Bixler filed a motion for partial summary judgment claiming the warranty deed conveyed fifty percent of the surface and mineral estate to him and he was entitled to partition of the property.
[¶ 8] At the summary judgment hearing, Mr. Bixler conceded Oro's summary judgment motion on the breach of contract, fraud and conversion claims. The district court denied Mr. Bixler's motion for partial summary judgment on partition concluding the parties' interests in the property were governed by the napkin agreement and not the warranty deed. The district court determined that the napkin agreement indicated Mr. Bixler had a fifty percent interest in the surface estate, and a forty percent interest in the gravel, and "there is no contention otherwise." However, the court found the term "net mineral rights" was ambiguous and ordered a trial to determine what the parties intended by the phrase "twenty five percent of the net mineral rights."
[¶ 9] After two days of testimony concerning the meaning of "net mineral rights," the district court concluded the parties intended the term to mean Mr. Bixler had the right to receive twenty-five percent of the net revenues from mineral production on the Atlantic City property. The district court reasoned that while the deed created a tenancy in common and the parties' interests in the property were presumed to be equal, that presumption was successfully rebutted by a prior agreement between the parties that Mr. Bixler held no possessory or ownership interest in the mineral estate. Consequently, the district court held he was not entitled to partition of the minerals. He was entitled, however, to partition of fifty percent of the surface estate and forty percent of the gravel as the district court interpreted the napkin agreement.1 This appeal followed.
[¶ 10] Our standard for reviewing summary judgments is as follows:
Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and the prevailing party is entitled to have a judgment as a matter of law. A genuine issue of material fact exists when a disputed fact, if it were proven, would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of the cause of action or defense which the parties have asserted. We examine the record from the vantage point most favorable to the party who opposed the motion, and we give that party the benefit of all the favorable inferences which may fairly be drawn from the record. We evaluate the propriety of a summary judgment by employing the same standards and by using the same materials as were employed and used by the lower court. We do not accord any deference to the district court's decision on issues of law.
Connely v. McColloch (In re Estate of Drwenski), 2004 WY 5, ¶ 12, 83 P.3d 457, ¶ 12 (Wyo. 2004), quoting Mathewson v. City of Cheyenne, 2003 WY 10, ¶ 4, 61 P.3d 1229, ¶ 4 (Wyo. 2003).
[¶ 11] We review a trial court's conclusions of law de novo. Principal Life Insurance Co. v. Summit Well Service, Inc., 2002 WY 172, ¶ 20, 57 P.3d 1257,
¶ 20 (Wyo. 2002). A judge's factual findings are subject to a broader scope of review than a jury verdict; the appellate court may examine all the properly admissible evidence appearing in the record. We will not disturb the trial court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id. Findings of fact of the trial judge can also lose the insulation of the clearly erroneous standard if they are induced by an erroneous view of the law, or contain factual and legal conclusions that reflect the application of an improper legal standard. Shores v. Lindsey, 591 P.2d 895, 899-900 (Wyo. 1979).
[¶ 12] Mr. Bixler asserts the grantors conveyed the property including the mineral estate, by warranty deed, to him and Oro as tenants in common and parol evidence cannot be considered to contradict the terms of the deed. As a matter of law, Mr. Bixler contends the terms of the napkin agreement merged into the deed and the unambiguous terms of that deed granted him an undivided fifty percent interest in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ultra Res. Inc. A Wyo. Corp. v. Doyle
...construe a deed, a Court must consider the intent of the parties from the plain, unambiguous language utilized. Bixler v. ORO[Oro] Management LLC, 86 P.3d 843[, 849] (Wyo.2004). The focus must be on the entire document including the title, all parts of the deed and its terms, and any Smith ......
-
Redland v. Redland, S–14–0159.
...parties.” Bakken v. Price, 613 P.2d 1222, 1227 (Wyo.1980), quoting 8A Thompson on Real Property, § 4458, p. 331. See also Bixler v. Oro Management, L.L.C., 2004 WY 29, ¶ 13, 86 P.3d 843, 848 (Wyo.2004).“The parol evidence rule has been stated in many ways but the basic notion is that a writ......
-
Seven Lakes Development Co. v. Maxson
...a warranty deed like a contract "from specific language of the deed," and "begin by looking at the instrument itself." Bixler [v. Oro Mgmt., L.L.C., 2004 WY 29], ¶ 16[, 86 P.3d 843, 849 (Wyo. 2004)]. We must first examine the terms of the deed and give them their plain and ordinary meaning.......
-
Whitney Holding Corp. v. Terry
...in it. The district court and majority improperly used parol evidence to contradict the terms of the contract. See, Bixler v. Oro Management, LLC, 2004 WY 29, ¶ 20, 86 P.3d 843, 850 (Wyo.2004); Schulz, 837 P.2d at 75. [¶ 49] Another problem is that much of the evidence and testimony offered......