Rocky Mountain Steel Foundations, Inc. v. Brockett Co.
Decision Date | 10 April 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 20170407,20170407 |
Citation | 909 N.W.2d 671 |
Parties | ROCKY MOUNTAIN STEEL FOUNDATIONS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant v. BROCKETT COMPANY, LLC and Amber Brockett, Defendants and Mitchell’s Oil Field Services, Inc., aka Wood Group; and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, Defendants and Appellees |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Monte L. Rogneby (argued) and Briana L. Rummel (appeared), Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellant.
Nicholas C. Grant, Dickinson, ND, for defendants and appellees Mitchell’s Oil Field Services, Inc., also known as Wood Group, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America.
[¶ 1] Rocky Mountain Steel Foundations, Inc., appeals from a judgment invalidating its oil and gas construction liens and awarding attorney fees to Mitchell’s Oil Field Services, Inc., also known as Wood Group, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (collectively "Mitchell’s"). We reverse the judgment and remand, concluding the district court erred as a matter of law by finding N.D.C.C. § 35–24–04 invalidated Rocky Mountain’s liens and in awarding Mitchell’s statutory attorney fees.
[¶ 2] The parties stipulated to the following facts:
[¶ 3] Rocky Mountain recorded the liens on well leaseholds by ConocoPhillips Company and Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. (the "owners"). The owners are not parties to this case because Mitchell’s bonds replaced the wells as security for the liens. N.D.C.C. § 35–24–13(4). Brockett did not answer or appear at any hearings and admitted to nonpayment, but asserts it has no assets with which to pay. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Rocky Mountain for its breach of contract claim against Brockett.
[¶ 4] The parties submitted their remaining claims to the district court solely on interpretation of the oil and gas construction liens provided by N.D.C.C. ch. 35–24. The court found N.D.C.C. § 35–24–04 invalidated Rocky Mountain’s liens after the owners paid Mitchell’s:
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mitchell’s and awarded Mitchell’s attorney fees under N.D.C.C. § 35–24–19. Rocky Mountain appeals.
[¶ 5] The primary issue is whether N.D.C.C. § 35–24–04 permits a subcontractor’s oil and gas construction lien when an owner has fully paid a general contractor. Our standard of review for statutory interpretation is well-established:
Schmidt v. City of Minot , 2016 ND 175, ¶ 7, 883 N.W.2d 909 (citation omitted).
[¶ 6] Rocky Mountain argues the district court erred in finding Rocky Mountain’s liens were invalidated when the owners fully paid Mitchell’s. We agree. Section 35–24–02, N.D.C.C., allows contractors to file liens for unpaid materials furnished or services rendered "in the drilling or operating of any oil or gas well upon such leasehold."
"Any person who shall, under contract, perform any labor or furnish any material or services as a subcontractor under an original contractor or for or to an original contractor or a subcontractor under an original contractor, is entitled to a lien upon all the property upon which the lien of an original contractor may attach to the same extent as an original contractor...."
N.D.C.C. § 35–24–04. " ‘Original contractor’ means any person for whose benefit a lien is prescribed under section 35–24–02." N.D.C.C. § 35–24–01(8).
"Nothing in this chapter may be deemed to fix a greater liability upon an owner in favor of any claimant under an original contractor than the amount for which the owner would be liable to the original contractor; provided, however, that the risk of all payments made to the original contractor is upon the owner after the receipt of notice that a lien is claimed by a person other than the original contractor...."
N.D.C.C. § 35–24–07 (emphasis added). " ‘Owner’ means a person holding any interest in the legal or equitable title or both to any leasehold for oil or gas purposes ... or that person’s agent...." N.D.C.C. § 35–24–01(9).
[¶ 7] The plain wording of N.D.C.C. §§ 35–24–04 and –07 protects an owner from liability greater than the original contract unless that owner receives notice of a subcontractor’s lien and subsequently pays the general contractor rather than the subcontractor. Here, Rocky Mountain furnished materials for Brockett. Brockett and Rocky Mountain are "a subcontractor under an original contractor" for purposes of § 35–24–04. Brockett did not pay Rocky Mountain. Mitchell’s is an "original contractor" for purposes of §§ 35–24–04 and –07. Rocky Mountain recorded its liens on October 24, 2014. Rocky Mountain’s liens attached to the owners’ wells "to the same extent as an original contractor." See N.D.C.C. § 35–24–04.
[¶ 8] On or about November 11, 2014 the owners received notice of the liens "by a person other than the original contractor," i.e. Rocky Mountain. See N.D.C.C. § 35–24–07. The owners fully paid Mitchell’s on January 15, 2015, approximately two months after receiving notice of Rocky Mountain’s liens. Under the statute, the risk of this payment failing to satisfy the lien was on the owners because they received the lien notice before paying. Mitchell’s obtained lien release bonds for the wells, but that "substitution" does not change the fundamentals of Rocky Mountain’s foreclosure. See N.D.C.C. § 35–24–13 ( ).
[¶ 9] Mitchell’s asserts the owners’ payment extinguished liability, thus extinguishing Mitchell’s or Rocky Mountain’s entitlement to file a lien. Citing the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s interpretation of a similar oil and gas construction lien statute, Mitchell’s contends: (1) if an owner has no liability to a general contractor, the general contractor may not file a lien; (2) a subcontractor’s ability to file a lien is the same as a general contractor; and (3) therefore, if the general contractor may not file a lien, a subcontractor may not file a lien. In Josey Oil Co. v. Ledden , a drilling contractor abandoned its work when it still owed payment to various subcontractors. 162 Okla. 262, 20 P.2d 582 (1933). The Oklahoma Supreme Court held, "When it is shown that the original contractor cannot have a lien upon the property of the owner ... then his subcontractors can have no lien upon specific property under the subcontractor’s lien statute." Id. at 583. The three Oklahoma cases cited by Mitchell’s follow a similar pattern: the general contractor abandoned drilling a well or breached the contract, the subcontractor did not receive payment, the subcontractor filed a lien, and the court invalidated the subcontractor’s lien because the general contractor was not entitled to a lien. See Conservation Oil Co. v. Graper , 173 Okla. 127, 46 P.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Rath v. Rath
-
Wilkinson v. Bd. of Univ.
...minerals." [¶24] The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal. Rocky Mountain Steel Founds., Inc. v. Brockett Co., LLC , 2018 ND 96, ¶ 5, 909 N.W.2d 671. Our primary objective in interpreting statutes is to determine the legislature's intent. Bak......
-
Oil & Gas Transfer L. L.C. v. Karr
...(8th Cir. 2000).4 Only one published North Dakota state court case involves section 35-24-04. See Rocky Mountain Steel Foundations, Inc. v. Brockett Co. , LLC, 2018 ND 96, 909 N.W.2d 671. In that case, the North Dakota Supreme Court did not address whether entities other than subcontractors......
-
Rocky Mountain Steel Foundations, Inc. v. Brockett Co.
...invalidating Rocky Mountain’s oil and gas construction liens and awarding attorney’s fees to Mitchell’s. See Rocky Mountain Steel Founds., Inc. v. Brockett Co., LLC , 2018 ND 96, ¶ 1, 909 N.W.2d 671. We stated the underlying facts in the prior appeal, and we will not repeat them here except......