Sullivan v. Utah Bd. of Oil, Gas & Mining

• Decision Date: 11 July 2008
• Docket Number: No. 20070410.,20070410.
• Citation: 2008 UT 44,189 P.3d 63
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: Christopher M. SULLIVAN, Petitioner, v. UTAH BOARD OF OIL, GAS AND MINING; and Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore, LP, Respondents.

189 P.3d 63

2008 UT 44

Christopher M. SULLIVAN, Petitioner, v. UTAH BOARD OF OIL, GAS AND MINING; and Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore, LP, Respondents.

No. 20070410.

Supreme Court of Utah.

July 11, 2008.

Rehearing Denied July 11, 2008.

Christopher M. Sullivan, Boulder, CO, pro se petitioner.

Mark L. Shurtleff, Att'y Gen., Michael S. Johnson, Asst. Att'y Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent Utah Board of Oil, Gas and Mining.

Craig D. Galli, Cecilia M. Romero, Salt Lake City, for respondent Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore.

AMENDED OPINION

PARRISH, Justice:

INTRODUCTION

¶ 1 In 2006, Christopher M. Sullivan filed a request for agency action with the Utah Board of Oil, Gas and Mining (the "Board"). Sullivan claimed to be legally entitled to a share of the proceeds from sixteen oil and gas wells owned and operated by Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore, LP ("KMG"). We are asked to determine whether the Board properly denied Sullivan's request for agency action. Sullivan argues that the Board erred by (1) dismissing his request without a hearing on the merits, (2) refusing to continue the matter pending the outcome of a parallel state court action, and (3) refusing to order that KMG deposit the disputed proceeds in an escrow account. We find no error and therefore affirm the Board's denial of Sullivan's request for agency action.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 In 1970, the Bureau of Land Management awarded an oil and gas lease to Joseph A. Thomas. In 1972, Thomas assigned the lease to Raymond Chorney under an Assignment Affecting Record Title to Oil and Gas Lease (the "Assignment"). As part of the Assignment, Thomas reserved rights to certain royalty payments. This reservation of royalty payments is the basis of the underlying dispute between the successors in interest to the Assignment. KMG — Chorney's successor in interest — interprets the Assignment as only requiring production payments, whereas Sullivan — one of Thomas' successors in interest¹ — interprets the Assignment as requiring both production payments and overriding royalty payments.²

¶ 3 The dispute between KMG and Sullivan began in February 2006, when KMG sent two letters to Sullivan declaring that, upon review of the Assignment, KMG's obligation had been "satisfied and paid in full as of December 2004." KMG stated that the letters served as notice that it would make no further royalty payments to Sullivan. Additionally, KMG claimed that it had overpaid Sullivan $152,322.96 and insisted that Sullivan remit the overpayment. In his response letter, Sullivan disagreed with KMG's interpretation of the Assignment. Sullivan insisted that KMG resume the royalty payments and claimed that KMG owed him $218,480 in unpaid production payments.

¶ 4 Sullivan filed a request for agency action with the Board in July 2006. Sullivan claimed that KMG's refusal to make the royalty payments constituted a breach of contract, and he requested that the Board set the matter for investigation and negotiation. Sullivan further requested that, in the event the matter could not be resolved after investigation and negotiation, the Board set the matter for a hearing and, thereafter, enter an order stating (1) that Sullivan is entitled to the proceeds, (2) that KMG's nonpayment of the proceeds was without reasonable justification, (3) that KMG must pay future proceeds to Sullivan, and (4) that KMG must pay penalties and interest. In its response to Sullivan's request, KMG acknowledged the underlying contractual dispute, but insisted that its interpretation of the Assignment was correct and that it owed Sullivan nothing. KMG subsequently filed a separate civil action in the Eighth District Court in order to resolve the underlying contract dispute.

¶ 5 In December 2006, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Board instructed the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (the "Division") to commence a sixty-day investigation and negotiation period in accordance with Utah Code section 40-6-9(5) (2005). The parties submitted documents and evidence in support of their positions, which the Division reviewed. In January 2007, the Division met with the parties to hear arguments and to facilitate negotiations, but the Division was ultimately unsuccessful in helping the parties reach a settlement.

¶ 6 The Division issued its Memorandum Regarding Investigation and Negotiations in February 2007. The Division noted that it "is not necessarily [an] expert in the rules governing a determination of marketable title or the right to proceeds" and that it "relies on the courts for these determinations." The Division concluded that its investigation "did not discover facts that provide a proper basis for Board action if a hearing were held." As a result, the Division recommended that the Board not set the matter for a hearing and instead allow the parties to pursue their legal remedies in the pending state court action.

¶ 7 At its March 2007 meeting, the Board reviewed the Division's recommendation and heard arguments from the parties. KMG urged the Board to dismiss Sullivan's request for agency action so that the parties could resolve their dispute in the pending state court action. Sullivan agreed that the underlying contractual dispute should be decided in state court, but urged the Board to grant the limited relief of ordering KMG to deposit the disputed funds in an interest-bearing escrow account until the dispute was resolved.³ After hearing the parties' arguments and deliberating, the Board denied Sullivan's request that the disputed funds be paid into escrow.

¶ 8 In April 2007, the Board issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. The Board determined that under Utah Code section 40-6-9(6), it had the discretion to either (1) set a hearing or (2) decline to set a hearing and allow Sullivan to seek a remedy in court. Because the Board determined that the contractual dispute would be better resolved in the already-pending state court action, the Board declined to set a hearing, thereby allowing the parties to resolve their conflict in court. In short, the Board denied Sullivan's request for agency action.

¶ 9 Sullivan filed a petition for review with this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-3-102(3)(e)(iv) (2008).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 10 We will grant relief "only if, on the basis of the agency's record ... [the] person seeking judicial review has been substantially prejudiced." Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(4) (2004). We review an administrative agency's "interpretation of its statutorily granted powers and authority as a question of law, with no deference to the agency's view of the law." Bevans v. Indus. Comm'n, 790 P.2d 573, 576 (Utah Ct.App. 1990); see also Bennion v. Graham Res., Inc., 849 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah 1993) ("[W]e review the Board's interpretation of the applicable statutes for correctness and give its view on the matter no particular deference."). "Issues of legal discretion may be challenged only by showing that `the agency action is ... an abuse of the discretion delegated to the agency by statute.'" WWC Holding Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 2001 UT 23, ¶ 8, 44 P.3d 714 (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(4)(h)(i) (1997)). "`An agency has abused its discretion when the agency's action viewed in the context of the language and purpose of the governing statute, is unreasonable.'" Id. (quoting Morton Int'l, Inc. v. Auditing Div. of the Utah State Tax Comm'n, 814 P.2d 581, 587 (Utah 1991)).

ANALYSIS

¶ 11 Sullivan argues that the Board erred by (1) dismissing his request for agency action without holding a hearing on the merits, (2) refusing to continue the matter pending the outcome of the parallel state court action, and (3) refusing to order KMG to deposit the disputed funds in an escrow account. Because Sullivan waived his hearing request and failed to ask for a continuance before the Board, we do not reach his substantive arguments on the first two assignments of error. As to the third assignment of error, we determine that although the Board generally has discretion to order a payor to deposit disputed proceeds into escrow, the Board did not have that discretion under the facts of this case.

I. SULLIVAN WAIVED HIS REQUEST FOR A HEARING

¶ 12 We recently reiterated the general rule that "`one who acquiesces in a judgment cannot later attack it.'" Gardner v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 2008 UT 6, ¶ 46, 178 P.3d 893 (quoting Trees v. Lewis, 738 P.2d 612, 613 (Utah 1987)). In Gardner, the district court issued a decision on cross-motions for summary judgment, which disposed of all but four issues. Id. ¶ 44. The county then moved for summary judgment on the remaining issues, and counsel for the opposing landowners asked the court to rule against his clients. Id. ¶ 45. The court acquiesced by granting the County's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing with prejudice the remaining claims. Id. We held that counsel's acquiescence in the dismissal of the four issues constituted a waiver of the right to appeal those issues. Id. ¶ 47.

¶ 13 At the March 2007 Board meeting, Sullivan's counsel acquiesced in the Division's recommendation that the Board deny a hearing and allow the parties to resolve the contractual dispute in the pending state court action. Indeed, Sullivan's counsel told the Board that the only remedy Sullivan was seeking from the Board was that KMG be required to deposit the disputed funds into escrow. Because Sullivan acquiesced in the Board's decision to deny a hearing, he thereby waived his right to petition this court for review of that decision.

II. SULLIVAN FAILED TO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE BEFORE THE BOARD

¶ 14 "We have consistently held that issues not raised in proceedings before administrative agencies are not subject to judicial review except in exceptional circumstances." Brown & Root Indus. Serv. v. Indus. Comm'n, 947 P.2d 671, 677 (Utah 1997). "The rationale is that by raising an issue at the administrative level ... [the...