Leggett v. EQT Prod. Co.
Decision Date | 30 May 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 16-0136,16-0136 |
Citation | 800 S.E.2d 850 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | Patrick D. LEGGETT, et al., Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners v. EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, et al., Defendants Below, Respondents |
Marvin W. Masters, Esq., Richard A. Monahan, Esq., April D. Ferrebee, Esq., The Masters Law Firm lc, Charleston, West Virginia, and Michael W. Carey, Esq., Carey, Scott, Douglas & Kessler, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for Petitioners
This case is before the Court upon certified questions presented by the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia regarding whether this Court's decision in Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources, L.L.C. , 219 W.Va. 266, 633 S.E.2d 22 (2006), has "any effect" upon whether a lessee of an oil and/or gas lease subject to West Virginia Code § 22-6-8 (1994) may deduct post-production expenses from the lessor's royalty. Upon original hearing, a majority of this Court reformulated the certified question and held that royalties paid pursuant to leases which were subject to West Virginia Code § 22-6-8 could not be "diluted" by costs incurred downstream from the wellhead, nor could amounts attributable to loss or beneficial use of volume be deducted prior to calculation of royalties.
However, upon careful review of the briefs on rehearing, the appendix record, the arguments of the parties and amici curiae,1 and the applicable legal authority, we conclude that both the legislative intent and language utilized in West Virginia Code § 22-6-8 permits allocation or deduction of reasonable post-production expenses actually incurred by the lessee and more specifically permits use of the "net-back" or "work-back" method of royalty calculation.
The petitioners Patrick D. Leggett, et al (hereinafter "the petitioners") are owners of a 75% undivided interest in the gas estate of a 2,000-acre tract in Doddridge County. Certain wells on the property are "flat-rate" wells, i.e. wells for which the lease provides for payment of a sum certain per well, per year. In 1982, the Legislature enacted the predecessor of West Virginia Code § 22-6-8,2 which provides that permits for flat-rate wells will not be issued unless the lessee swears by affidavit that it will pay the lessor no less than one-eighth "of the total amount paid to or received by or allowed to [the lessee] at the wellhead for the oil or gas so extracted, produced or marketed[.]" (emphasis added).
The petitioners filed suit against respondent EQT Production Company and affiliated companies (hereinafter "EQT")3 for underpayment of royalties, resulting from EQT's deduction of certain costs incurred for the gathering and transporting of the gas to the interstate pipeline. In particular, EQT takes the full price it obtains by selling the gas at the interstate pipeline and deducts "some" of the costs ("midstream" costs or "postproduction" costs) incurred after it is extracted,4 but before it reaches the market at the pipeline. EQT maintains that the only way to capture the statutorily-required "wellhead" price is to utilize this so-called "net-back" or "work- back" method which deducts postproduction expenses from the sales price to duplicate the "wellhead" price. The petitioners contend that neither West Virginia Code § 22-6-8(e) nor the common law of West Virginia permit deduction or allocation of costs in this manner for purposes of royalty calculation.
Accordingly, the District Court certified the following questions to this Court pursuant to the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, West Virginia Code § 51-1A-1 (1996) et seq .:
(footnote added).
This Court has consistently held that ." Syl. Pt. 2, Aikens v. Debow , 208 W.Va. 486, 541 S.E.2d 576 (2000). Moreover, "[w]here the issue on an appeal ... is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review." Syl. Pt. 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995). With this standard of review in mind, we proceed to the remaining certified question.
Upon review of EQT's petition for rehearing, this Court determined that substantial justice required us to revisit the prior opinion issued in this matter to ascertain whether the previous majority had misapprehended certain points of law. See W. Va. R. App. Proc. 25(b) () . While an admittedly uncommon occurrence, rehearing exists expressly for the purpose of ensuring that opinions which are not well-founded due to misapprehension of the issues, the law, or the facts are rectified. Justice demands this procedural remedy, which this Court has judiciously utilized when the issues or outcome demand it. See Knotts v. Grafton City Hosp., 237 W.Va. 169, 786 S.E.2d 188 (2016) ( ); W. Va. Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v. A.B. , 234 W.Va. 492, 498, 766 S.E.2d 751, 757 (2014) ( ); Hosaflook v. Consolidation Coal Co ., 201 W.Va. 325, 329, 497 S.E.2d 174, 178 (1997) ( ); Haines v. Kimble , 221 W.Va. 266, 654 S.E.2d 588 (2007) (rehearing granted); Committee on Legal Ethics of West Virginia State Bar v. Farber , 191 W.Va. 667, 447 S.E.2d 602 (1994) (same); Jewell v. Maynard, 181 W.Va. 571, 383 S.E.2d 536 (1989)(same); Dadisman v. Moore , 181 W.Va. 779, 384 S.E.2d 816 (1988) (same); Turner v. State Compensation Comm'r , 147 W.Va. 145, 126 S.E.2d 379 (1962) (same); Garges v. State Compensation Comm'r, 147 W.Va. 188, 126 S.E.2d 193 (1962) (same); Ellis v. Henderson, 142 W.Va. 824, 98 S.E.2d 719 (1957) (same); Reese v. Lowry, 140 W.Va. 772, 86 S.E.2d 381 (1955) (same); Bailey v. Baker, 137 W.Va. 85, 70 S.E.2d 645 (1952) (same); State v. Gilliland, 51 W.Va. 278, 41 S.E. 131 (1902) (same).
As this Court has observed, reconsideration upon rehearing is often facilitated by a more focused and clearer presentation of the arguments by the parties, who commonly have a better understanding of the Court's characterization of the dispositive issues following an initial opinion. See Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co ., 223 W.Va. 624, 667, 679 S.E.2d 223, 266 (2008), rev'd and , 556 U.S. 868, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 (2009) (Albright, J., dissenting) ( ); A. B. , 234 W.Va. at 498, 518-19, 766 S.E.2d at 757, 777-78 ( ); Haines , 221 W.Va. at 272-73, nn.3 and 5, 654 S.E.2d at 594-95, nn.3 and 5 ( ). Oftentimes, briefs upon rehearing pierce through any insufficiency or imprecision of argument which may have affected the Court's initial offering. This is particularly the case where a matter is before the Court on the necessarily limited record often submitted upon certified question. When a petition for rehearing compels the Court to conclude that the law may have been misapprehended, neither hubris nor sanctimony should give the Court pause in granting rehearing to correct any such error of law or fact. As Justice Frankfurter stated, "[w]isdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late." Henslee v. Union Planters Nat'l Bank & Trust Co ., 335 U.S. 595, 600, 69 S.Ct. 290,...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Walters
- SWN Prod. Co. v. Kellam
-
SWN Prod. Co. v. Kellam
...law, despite SWN and Equinor's contention that its potential overruling was suggested in Leggett v. EQT Production Co., 239 W.Va. 264, 800 S.E.2d 850 (2017). In order to address this question, it is necessary to summarize the legal developments that led to it in the first place. Over twenty......
- Corder v. Antero Res. Corp.
-
LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN 2017 AFFECTING THE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
...State, 352 S.W.3d 479, 491 (Tex. 2011)). [188] No. 04-15-00677-CV, 2017 WL 2797479 (Tex. App.--San Antonio June 28, 2017, no pet.). [189] 800 S.E.2d 850 (W. Va. 2017). [190] 796 S.E.2d 233 (W. Va. 2017). [191] Id. at 239. [192] H. Enrolled Act 85, 2017 Leg., 64th Gen, Sess. (Wyo. 2017). [19......