Rainbow Oil Co. v. Christmann
Decision Date | 29 December 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 5734,5734 |
Citation | 656 P.2d 538 |
Parties | RAINBOW OIL COMPANY, Appellant (Defendant), v. John J. CHRISTMANN, Margaret Roden, Vernon Delgado, Barbara McKinley and Stuart McKinley, MGF Oil Corporation, and Sublette Properties, Inc., Appellees (Plaintiffs). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Robert J. Pickett of Pickett, McKinney & Smith, Rock Springs, and John S. Pfeiffer of Gorsuch, Kirgis, Campbell, Walker & Grover, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
John C. Brooks and J.E. Vlastos of Vlastos, Reeves & Murdock, Casper, for appellees.
Before ROSE, C.J., RAPER, THOMAS and ROONEY, JJ., and SAWYER, District Judge.
The present dispute arises out of a contractual relationship between Rainbow Oil Company, 1 the appellant, and John J. Christmann, 2 one of the appellees, in which Christmann brought suit seeking specific performance of the contract. Rainbow responded charging Christmann with breaching the agreement and seeking its reformation. In its judgment, the district court ordered specific performance, refused to reform and found generally in favor of the appellee and against the appellant in all respects. It is from this judgment that Rainbow Oil Company appeals.
Rainbow Oil Company is, and at all times pertinent to this litigation was, the owner of federal oil and gas lease Number W-0131513 in the Labarge field located in Lincoln County, Wyoming. In early 1973, Rainbow was advised by the United States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) that this lease was subject to forfeiture if Rainbow did not undertake a program of reworking and modernizing its operations. At that time ten wells were in place on one-half of the quarter section covered by the lease. These wells had been drilled in the 1920's and by the early 1970's they were in a state of disrepair with only eight of them producing oil. We will refer to this part of the leasehold as "Old Rainbow."
Being in poor financial condition and unable to comply with the U.S.G.S. directive, Rainbow sought to sell its interest in the lease and, to this end, the appellant's president, Jeanne Cailliez, retained appellee Stuart McKinley to assist in finding a buyer for the property. While Mr. McKinley was searching for potential buyers, he was contacted by John B. Roden who inquired about the availability of the property. Roden Rainbow Oil Company entered into a farmout agreement with John Christmann on August 26, 1975 according to the terms of which Christmann was to drill some test wells on the undeveloped portion of the lease, after which he would assume operating control of "Old Rainbow" for the purpose of reworking and modernizing the ten existing wells. It was the purpose of Rainbow to have the leasehold developed in accordance with the U.S.G.S. directive while minimizing the financial risks associated with such a program. It was Christmann's intent to formulate an agreement which would allow him to become the sole operator of the Rainbow properties. These objectives formed the basis of the contract between the parties.
was the chief executive officer of Roden Drilling Company and Big Springs Exploration, Incorporated, the former being a wholly owned subsidiary of the latter. John Roden's interest in the lease was shared by appellee Vernon Delgado who was the president of appellee Sublette Properties, Incorporated and, through the efforts of Roden and Delgado, Mr. Christmann was contacted about the leasehold. Mrs. Cailliez knew of the mutual interest which Delgado, Roden and Christmann shared with respect to the Rainbow property, and meetings were held to discuss possible participation of these individuals concerning the development of the Rainbow lease.
The farmout agreement executed in August of 1975 provided:
Rainbow Oil Company will thereafter be entitled to 25% of the net profit therefrom.
As can be seen from the above, the farmout agreement first required that Christmann and his partners 3 drill three wells on the undeveloped south one-half of the leasehold which we will hereafter call the "New Rainbow." The operator was also required to drill one gas well in the "New Rainbow" area. These wells were in fact drilled and, under a subsequent agreement between appellant and appellee Christmann, 16 oil wells were drilled on "New Rainbow" all of which were producers. This drilling program was completed by June of 1978. As the contract reveals, after completion of the drilling program on "New Rainbow," the operator Christmann was to take over the ten existing wells on "Old Rainbow" for the purpose of carrying out a rework program. This provision was calculated to satisfy the U.S.G.S. directive issued to Rainbow Oil Company in 1973.
It is to be recalled that the contract further provides that each of the parties is given a right of first refusal which purports to afford each party the opportunity to purchase the interest of any party or interest owner who decides to sell. The parties also provided for a 2% overriding royalty to be conveyed to Stuart McKinley as consideration for his services in assisting in the formulation of the agreement. Finally, it was the purpose of the agreement to relieve Rainbow Oil Company of the financial risks associated with development, while also guaranteeing the company a 25% share in the proceeds. 4
Problems arose when Rainbow Oil Company refused to relinquish control of "Old Rainbow" to Christmann after his drilling program on "New Rainbow" was completed in June of 1978. Rainbow Oil Company's financial condition had improved while Christmann and associates were discharging their obligations on "New Rainbow," thus enabling Rainbow Oil to do some reworking and redrilling on "Old Rainbow." Christmann made at least four demands on Rainbow Oil in an effort to enforce his right to control "Old Rainbow" once his drilling program on "New Rainbow" was finished, but all were refused, whereupon he stopped payment to Rainbow Oil of its share of the proceeds being derived from the production on "New Rainbow." Christmann then brought the present action seeking specific performance of the agreement and, as mentioned previously, Rainbow Oil Company "A. The Court Erred In Finding That The Transfers Of The Interests of Christmann, Roden, Delgado and Roden Drilling Company Were Not Sales Within The Meaning Of The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Ass'n, Inc. v. Shoshone River Power, Inc., TRI-STATE
...Co., 707 P.2d 161, 166 (Wyo.1985); Adobe Oil & Gas Corp. v. Getter Trucking, Inc., 676 P.2d 560, 562 (Wyo.1984); Rainbow Oil Co. v. Christmann, 656 P.2d 538, 545 (Wyo.1982); McCartney v. Malm, 627 P.2d 1014, 1020 (Wyo.1981); Quin Blair Enterprises, Inc. v. Julien Constr. Co, 597 P.2d 945, 9......
-
Andersen v. Corbitt, 88-176
...707 P.2d 161 (Wyo.1985); Adobe Oil & Gas Corporation v. Getter Trucking Company, Inc., 676 P.2d 560 (Wyo.1984); Rainbow Oil Company v. Christmann, 656 P.2d 538 (Wyo.1982); McCartney v. Malm, 627 P.2d 1014 (Wyo.1981); Wyoming Machinery Company v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 61......
-
Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Texaco, Inc.
...Ambiguity is not created, however, by the parties' subsequent disagreement over the meaning of the contract. Rainbow Oil Co. v. Christmann, 656 P.2d 538, 542 (Wyo.1982); Amoco Production Co., 612 P.2d at 465. When the meaning of a contract is unambiguous, extrinsic evidence is not admitted ......
-
Crompton v. Bruce
...a written contract or agreement, (3) which does not conform to the understanding, by reason of mutual mistake. Rainbow Oil Company v. Christmann, Wyo., 656 P.2d 538, 544 (1982); Pfister v. Brown, Wyo., 498 P.2d 1243, 1244 (1972); Russell v. Curran, 66 Wyo. 173, 206 P.2d 1159, 1163 (1949); S......
-
CHAPTER 4 PROPERTY PROVISIONS OF THE JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENT: AN UPDATE FOR THE NEW 2015 FORM JOA
...that the pre-emptive right would only apply in the event of proposed sale to a third party). [142] See, e.g., Rainbow v. Christmann, 656 P.2d 538, 543-44 (Wyo. 1982) (pre-emptive right in farmout agreement). [143] Annotation, "Rights of Holder of First Refusal Option on Real Property in Eve......
-
CHAPTER 4 PROPERTY PROVISIONS OF THE JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENT: AN UPDATE FOR THE NEW 2015 FORM JOA
...that the pre-emptive right would only apply in the event of proposed sale to a third party). [142] See, e.g., Rainbow v. Christmann, 656 P.2d 538, 543-44 (Wyo. 1982) (pre-emptive right in farmout agreement). [143] Annotation, "Rights of Holder of First Refusal Option on Real Property in Eve......
-
CHAPTER 3 PROPERTY PROVISIONS OF THE JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENT
...that the pre-emptive right would only apply in the event of proposed sale to a third party). [63] See, e.g., Rainbow v. Christmann, 656 P.2d 538, 543-44 (Wyo. 1982)(pre-emptive right in farmout agreement). [64] Annotation, Rights of Holder of First Refusal Option on Real Property in Event o......
-
CHAPTER 3 PROPERTY PROVISIONS OF THE JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENT
...that the pre-emptive right would only apply in the event of proposed sale to a third party). [63] See, e.g., Rainbow v. Christmann, 656 P.2d 538, 543-44 (Wyo. 1982)(pre-emptive right in farmout agreement). [64] Annotation, Rights of Holder of First Refusal Option on Real Property in Event o......