Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. Sorenson

Decision Date11 March 2016
Docket NumberNo. S–15–0210.,S–15–0210.
Citation371 P.3d 120,2016 WY 34
PartiesPENNACO ENERGY, INC., Appellant (Defendant), v. Brett L. SORENSON, Trustee of the Brett L. Sorenson Trust dated November 2, 2011, Appellee (Plaintiff).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

Representing Appellant: Marie R. Yeates and Michael A. Heidler of Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P., Houston, Texas; Mark R. Ruppert, Isaac N. Sutphin, and Jeffrey S. Pope of Holland & Hart, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Patrick H. Martin, Professor of Law, Louisiana State University. Argument by Ms. Yeates.

Representing Appellee: Kendal R. Hoopes of Yonkee & Toner, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming.

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.

DAVIS, Justice.

[¶ 1] This case arises from Pennaco Energy Inc.'s refusal to perform obligations under a surface damage and use agreement. The story began some years back when Pennaco acquired mineral leases beneath a surface estate owned by Brett Sorenson, Trustee of the Brett L. Sorenson Trust. The parties negotiated a contract concerning damage to and use of the surface estate. It granted Pennaco access to and use of the land during exploration for and production of minerals it had leased. In return, Pennaco agreed to pay for damage to and use of the surface estate, and to reclaim the land once operations ended.

[¶ 2] With the surface damage and use agreement in place, Pennaco began drilling and production operations on Sorenson's land. It continued operations and made the requisite payments to Sorenson for a number of years, but then decided to sell its oil and gas interest to CEP–M Purchase, LLC. As part of the sale, Pennaco assigned its interest in the operations and agreements to CEP–M, which reassigned those interests to another company, High Plains Gas, Inc. Since then, neither Pennaco nor the assignees have made any of the payments required by the surface damage and use agreement and have not reclaimed Sorenson's land.

[¶ 3] Sorenson brought this lawsuit against Pennaco, CEP–M and High Plains Gas to recover the unpaid surface damage and use payments, and for damages resulting from the failure to reclaim lands and repair water wells. CEP–M and High Plains Gas defaulted. Pennaco answered and unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment, after which the case made its way to a jury trial. The jury rendered a verdict finding that Sorenson suffered $1,055,982.62 in damages. The district court entered judgment on the jury's verdict, and also awarded Sorenson costs and attorney fees, as provided for in the contract, in the amount of $332,662.97.

[¶ 4] Pennaco contends on appeal that the district court erred by (1) ruling as a matter of law that Pennaco remained liable under the surface damage and use agreement after assignment, and (2) using a 2.5 multiplier to enhance the lodestar amount in awarding attorney fees. As to the first issue, the parties in this case submitted their briefs without having the benefit of our recent decision in Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. KD Co. LLC, 2015 WY 152, 363 P.3d 18 (Wyo.2015). That precedent controls the first issue, and we conclude the district court did not err in ruling that Pennaco remains liable under the surface damage and use agreement. As to the second issue, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Sorenson as it did. Accordingly, we affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 5] 1. Did the district court err when it determined as a matter of law that Pennaco remains liable to perform obligations under the surface damage and use agreement, where those obligations purportedly accrued after Pennaco assigned its interest in the mineral estate and the surface damage and use agreement to a third party?

2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by adjusting Sorenson's attorney fees award upward 2.5 times from an amount calculated by multiplying the number of hours by the hourly rate?

FACTS

[¶ 6] Sorenson owns a ranch along the Powder River near the town of Arvada, Wyoming. The ranch land is a split estate for mineral development purposes; that is, the surface estate is owned by Sorenson and the mineral estate is owned by several parties. Specifically, the minerals are owned in part by seven private parties, the State of Wyoming and Sorenson. The third party mineral owners, including the State of Wyoming, executed oil and gas leases underlying the surface estate. Subsequently, so did Sorenson.1

[¶ 7] In the 1990s, Pennaco acquired interests in the oil and gas leases underlying Sorenson's ranch. Pennaco and Sorenson then entered into a surface damage and use agreement, the stated purpose of which was to give the parties a “firm understanding as to what damages will be payable in the event of development of the lands” owned by Sorenson. The contract gave Pennaco the right to enter upon and use Sorenson's lands for the purpose of coalbed methane drilling and production operations. The access and use rights granted to Pennaco were separate from and in addition to the basic reasonable use of the surface that Pennaco had as a mineral owner under the oil and gas leases.2 As a result, Pennaco had the benefit of detailed terms upon which it could construct access roads, put up power lines, and install pipelines on Sorenson's property.

[¶ 8] In exchange for the rights it was granted by the surface damage and use agreement, Pennaco agreed to make annual payments to compensate Sorenson for the use of his land and the damages caused by its operations. The agreement required annual payments of $750.00 for each well drilled and $5.00 per rod3 for the access roads and pipelines constructed. The contract provided that [a]ll annual payments are due and payable until such time as the property is restored and reclaimed.”

[¶ 9] Pennaco also agreed to restore and reseed well sites, to remove all above-ground equipment, and to restore the land to its original state when mineral production ended. It was also required to return roads and other rights-of-way to a condition as close to the land's original state as reasonably possible. It promised to restore any of Sorenson's water wells or natural artesian springs that were impaired by the coalbed methane operations, either by reconfiguring or redrilling them, or by drilling new water wells if necessary.

[¶ 10] With the surface damage and use agreement in place, Pennaco began developing its coalbed methane operation on Sorenson's ranch. It drilled ten coalbed methane wells, constructed 5.67 miles (1,815.37 rods) of road, and installed 4.19 miles (1,343.57 rods) of pipeline. It also constructed four water disposal pits to store water produced by the wells.

[¶ 11] Pennaco made the annual payments required by the surface damage and use agreement through 2010. However, in 2009, Pennaco wrote Sorenson that it intended to shut-in4 some or all of its coalbed methane wells on the ranch.5 In early 2010, when Pennaco was shutting down its operations, Sorenson contacted Pennaco's landman regarding reclamation of the coalbed methane operations, including reclaiming the four water disposal pits (otherwise referred to as reservoirs). Pennaco's landman wrote to him in response on June 11, 2010, stating in part: “Pennaco affirms by the Surface Damage and Surface Use Agreement (“SUA”) dated April 13, 2001 ... that upon termination of the productive life of the producing field in conjunction with the following impoundments that if you elect not to retain the reservoirs for personal use that Pennaco will reclaim them.”

[¶ 12] A few weeks later, Pennaco entered into a purchase and sale agreement effective July 1, 2010 with CEP–M. As part of the sale,6 Pennaco assigned its interest in the lease underlying Sorenson's ranch lands and rights in the surface damage and use agreement to CEP–M. That entity then assigned its interests to High Plains Gas. According to Sorenson, the wells, pipelines, and roads were for all practical purposes abandoned.

[¶ 13] After the assignment in 2010, Pennaco did not pay annual payments or reclaim any of Sorenson's land as required by the surface damage and use agreement. The assignees did not do so either. Accordingly, Sorenson gave Pennaco written notice of its default and of the impairment of his water sources as was required under the surface damage and use agreement. Pennaco still did not perform these obligations after receiving notice that Sorenson claimed it was in violation of the contract.

[¶ 14] Sorenson then sued Pennaco and the assignees to collect the annual payments and to enforce the reclamation obligations he was owed under the surface damage and use agreement. CEP–M and High Plains Gas failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, and as a result, the district court entered a default judgment against them.7 Pennaco answered, generally denying Sorenson's claims.

[¶ 15] In due course, Pennaco filed a motion for summary judgment in which it claimed that it was no longer required to perform the obligations in the surface damage and use agreement. It argued that the exculpatory clause included in the mineral lease8 was incorporated by reference into the surface damage and use agreement, and that as a result, it was no longer liable after assignment. Alternatively, it argued that obligations in the surface damage and use agreement constitute covenants running with the ownership of the mineral estate that benefits from using an easement on the surface estate. Thus, it asserted, because the obligations are considered covenants running with the land, those obligations passed from Pennaco to CEP–M when the mineral estate and surface damage and use agreement was assigned, leaving Pennaco free and clear of any continued liability. Sorenson argued in response that Pennaco continued to be bound to perform the obligations in the contract after assignment by basic principles of contract law. Sorenson contended that because there was neither an exculpatory clause in the contract nor a subsequent novation, Pennaco remained on the hook.

[¶ 16] The district court denied Pennaco's motion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Acorn v. Moncecchi
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • December 22, 2016
    ...the issue of any outstanding claims could easily have been resolved by the district court in a final pre-trial order. See Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. Sorenson , 2016 WY 34, ¶ 26 n.12, 371 P.3d 120, 126 n.12 (Wyo. 2016).7 In appeal No. S-16-0099, the Appellants are Tamra Acorn and Rebecca Shwen ......
  • Essex Holding, LLC v. Basic Props., Inc.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • September 26, 2018
    ...reasonable rate; and (2) other factors of discretionary application should be considered to adjust the fee upward or downward. Pennaco Energy, Inc. , 2016 WY 34, ¶ 52, 371 P.3d at 131 (citations omitted). The Wyoming legislature has set out the following factors to guide a court’s discretio......
  • Johnson Cnty. Ranch Improvement #1, LLC v. Goddard
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • September 1, 2020
    ...were ambiguous and this legal ruling became the law of the case, it is reviewable. They rely primarily on Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. Sorenson , 2016 WY 34, 371 P.3d 120 (Wyo. 2016) ; Essex Holding, LLC v. Basic Props., Inc. , 2018 WY 111, ¶ 47, 427 P.3d 708, 723 (Wyo. 2018) ; and Big-D Signatu......
  • Gordon v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • March 22, 2018
    ...if the record supports doing so. White v. Wheeler , 2017 WY 146, ¶ 14 n.2, 406 P.3d 1241, 1246 n.2 (Wyo. 2017) (citing Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. Sorenson , 2016 WY 34, ¶ 24 n.11, 371 P.3d 120, 125 n.11 (Wyo. 2016) ; Basic Energy Servs., L.P. v. Petroleum Res. Mgmt., Corp., 2015 WY 22, ¶ 20 n.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 7 ACQUIRING SURFACE USE RIGHTS FOR PIPELINES: THE EASEMENT WAY OR THE HARD WAY
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Oil & Gas Agreements: Surface Use in the 21st Century (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...Restatement of Property). [28] Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. KD Co. LLC et. al, 363 P.3d 18 (Wyo. 2015); Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. Sorenson, 371 P.3d 120 (Wyo. 2016) (adopting the analysis used in the KD Co. LLC case). [29] KD Co. LLC, 363 P.3d at 20-22. [30] Id. [31] Id. [32] Id. [33] Id. at 22-30......
  • LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN 2016 AFFECTING THE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
    • United States
    • FNREL - Journals Legal Developments in 2016 Affecting the Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Industry (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...(Mar. 26, 2015) (subsequently codified at 43 C.F.R. § 3160)). [317] Id. at *4-5, *7-8, *10. [318] Id. at *9-10. [319] Id. at *12. [320] 371 P.3d 120 (Wyo. 2016) (citing Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. KD Co. LLC, 363 P.3d 18 (Wyo. 2015). [321] Id. at 130-31. [322] 366 P.3d 489 (Wyo. 2016). [323] Wy......
  • CHAPTER 8 ADDRESSING KEY ITEMS IN SURFACE USE AGREEMENTS
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Oil & Gas Agreements: Surface Use in the 21st Century (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...visited April 10, 2017). [26] Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. KD Co. LLC, 363 P.3d 18 (Wyo. 2015); see also Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. Sorenson, 371 P.3d 120 (Wyo. 2016) [27] KD Co. LLC, 363 P.3d at 20-21. [28] Id. Pennaco involved two surface use agreements (KD and Hollcroft) and lower court cases th......
  • Reasonability of a Creditor's Claim for Attorneys' Fees
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 37-1, November 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...enhancement for lodestar).196. See Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 675 P.2d 193, 204 (1983); Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. Sorenson, 371 P.3d 120, 135 (Wyo. 2016) ("a reasonable fee is one that is adequate to induce competent counsel to undertake representation in a meritorious case, but i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT