Coastal Petroleum Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., NN-119
| Decision Date | 11 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. NN-119,NN-119 |
| Citation | 378 So.2d 336 |
| Parties | COASTAL PETROLEUM COMPANY, Appellant, v. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert J. Angerer, Joseph C. Jacobs of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen, Tallahassee, C. Dean Reasoner of Reasoner, Davis & Vinson, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Julian D. Clarkson, Tampa, Hume F. Coleman and F. Alan Cummings of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, for appellee.
Coastal is the lessee from the State of Florida of three state drilling leases covering some four million acres of sovereign land. On December 16, 1964, Mobil and Coastal entered into a letter agreement which provided a method by which Mobil could earn an undivided one half interest in Coastal leases. Essentially, Mobil could earn this interest if it spent ten million dollars on the leases or if it drilled 102,000 feet of hole on the subject property. Paragraph 18 of the Letter Agreement provided in part:
In 1968, litigation involving the three state drilling leases developed between Coastal and the U. S. Corps of Engineers in one action and between Coastal and the Florida Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund in another action. These two lawsuits were consolidated and will hereinafter be referred to as the 1968 lawsuit. The 1968 lawsuit was settled on January 6, 1976, by Coastal relinquishing certain of the acreage covered by the drilling leases and by modifying its interests in other acreage covered by the drilling leases to a royalty interest. Coastal had kept Mobil aware of the progress of the lawsuit and of the settlement negotiations. After the settlement, Mobil claimed that Coastal's title had failed to the lands relinquished and modified, and further claimed that work done to that point qualified Mobil for the undivided one half interest to the lands that remained under the leases as modified.
Mobile brought suit against Coastal, seeking a declaratory judgment as to its rights under the Letter Agreement and seeking specific performance of those rights. Other issues not relevant to the disposition of this appeal were severed for separate adjudication. The matters involved on this appeal were heard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foresight Enterprises, Inc. v. Leisure Time Properties, Inc.
...made in the case prior to his recusal. Schwartz v. Schwartz, 431 So.2d 716 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983), Coastal Petroleum Company v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 378 So.2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). If a jury verdict can be sustained on any theory, the appellate court must sustain it. Heitman v. Davis, 127......
-
Fischer v. Knuck
...retains the authority to perform the ministerial act of reducing that ruling to writing. Atrio; Schwartz; Coastal Petroleum Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 378 So.2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 635 (1980). However, any substantive change in the trial judge's ruling would not be a mi......
-
Schwartz v. Schwartz
...that a trial judge who recuses himself has the authority to enter final judgments on issues already tried, Coastal Petroleum Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 378 So.2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 635 (Fla.1980), or to continue where limited jurisdiction has been retained. State ex re......
-
Atrio Consol. Industries, Inc. v. Southeast Bank
...a subsequent order of disqualification. Schwartz v. Schwartz, 431 So.2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Coastal Petroleum Company v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 378 So.2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Lastly, no abuse of discretion has been shown in the order relating to the disclosure matter. Burroughs Corp......