Wausau Dev. Corp. v. Natural Gas & Oil, Inc.
Decision Date | 22 November 2013 |
Docket Number | 1120614. |
Citation | 144 So.3d 309 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | WAUSAU DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. NATURAL GAS & OIL, INC. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Eric A. Tiebauer, Jr., of the Tiebauer Law Offices, LLC, Waynesboro, Mississippi, for appellant.
H. Gregory Pearson and Charles E. Harrison of Junkin, Pearson, Harrison, Junkin & Pate, LLC, Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
Wausau Development Corporation (“WDC”) appeals a judgment entered by the Lamar Circuit Court (“the circuit court”) in favor of Natural Gas & Oil, Inc. (“NGO”). We reverse the circuit court's judgment.
On March 19, 2012, NGO filed a complaint seeking a judgment determining the validity of certain oil and gas leases held by WDC to particular wells located in Lamar County (“the wells”). NGO alleged that WDC was a Mississippi corporation with a principal office located in Mississippi and that WDC was not authorized to conduct business in Alabama because WDC was not registered as a foreign entity as required by § 10A–1–7.01, Ala.Code 1975.1 NGO also alleged that WDC had obtained leases to the wells but that, by their terms, WDC's leases had expired and had not been held open by production. NGO further alleged that it had obtained new and current leases on the wells.
On April 30, 2012, WDC filed a motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e), Ala. R. Civ. P, and a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7), Ala. R. Civ. P. On May 31, 2012, the circuit court held a hearing on WDC's motions. On June 4, 2012, the circuit court issued an order noting that WDC's motion for a more definite statement had been withdrawn and an order denying WDC's motion to dismiss.
On June 19, 2012, WDC filed an answer and counterclaims against NGO. WDC admitted that it was a Mississippi corporation and that it was not authorized to conduct business in Alabama. However, WDC denied NGO's allegation that WDC did not possess valid leases to the wells and that NGO did hold valid leases to the wells. WDC also expressly reserved the right to amend its answer and to raise additional defenses as discovery proceeded. WDC also asserted three counterclaims against NGO: breach of contract, slander of title, and unjust enrichment.
On July 10, 2012, NGO filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P; the circuit court denied the motion on the same day.
On July 16, 2012, NGO filed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings as to the three counterclaims asserted by WDC. On August 6, 2012, WDC filed a response to NGO's motion, requesting that NGO's motion be struck pursuant to Rule 12(g), Ala. R. Civ. P., as attempting to assert arguments not made in the original Rule 12 motion. On August 10, 2012, the circuit court held a hearing on NGO's motion for a judgment on the pleadings.
On September 17, 2012, the circuit court entered an order, which states, in pertinent part:
“IT IS ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
(Capitalization in original.) The circuit court's order also determined that the leases obtained by WDC to the wells were void, divested WDC of any and all interest in the leases, and declared NGO's leases to be valid and current.
The circuit court's judgment in favor of NGO relied upon Alabama's “door-closing” statute, § 10A–2–15.02(a), Ala.Code 1975, which states: 2
The door-closing statute is a capacity defense that must be raised by a party that has been sued by a foreign corporation that has not registered with the State of Alabama pursuant to § 10A–1–7.01. See Penick v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F & A M of Alabama, Inc., 46 So.3d 416, 425 (Ala.2010) (). However, the capacity defense afforded defendants by the door-closing statute is not applicable to actions by foreign entities that involve interstate commerce “because ‘businesses engaged in interstate commerce are protected by the commerce clause in the United States Constitution, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and are therefore immune from the effects of the “door closing” statutes.’ ” TradeWinds Envtl. Restoration, Inc. v. Brown Bros. Constr., L.L.C., 999 So.2d 875, 879 (Ala.2008) (quoting Stewart Mach. & Eng'g Co. v. Checkers Drive In Rests. of North America, Inc., 575 So.2d 1072, 1074 (Ala.1991)).
On October 15, 2012, WDC filed a postjudgment motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), Ala. R. Civ. P., to alter, amend, or vacate the circuit court's September 17, 2012, judgment. Consistent with this Court's holding in Stewart and TradeWinds, WDC argued, among other things, that the circuit court's judgment violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution because this case involves “an article of commerce which is wholly interstate in nature.” On January 14, 2013, WDC's postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law pursuant to Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P. WDC appeals.
“ ”
Medlock v. Safeway Ins. Co. of Alabama, 15 So.3d 501, 507 (Ala.2009) (quoting Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 776 So.2d 81, 82–83 (Ala.2000)). Here, no evidence was presented to the circuit court. Therefore, this Court conducts a de novo review, looking only to the pleadings to determine whether the circuit court erred in entering a judgment in favor of NGO.
WDC argues that the circuit court exceeded its discretion by granting NGO's motion for a judgment on the pleadings because, it says, the undisputed facts in the pleadings do not support the circuit court's judgment as a matter of law. We agree.
The circuit court based its judgment on the door-closing statute because WDC was not authorized to conduct business in Alabama. In its October 15, 2012, postjudgment motion, WDC argued that the circuit court's judgment was in contravention of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution because WDC's business activities in Alabama involved interstate commerce. In TradeWinds, supra, this Court explained the interstate-commerce exception to the door-closing statute:
999 So.2d at 878–79. WDC's postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law pursuant to Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P.; therefore, its argument regarding the Commerce Clause exception to § 10A–2–15.02(a) was not considered by the circuit court. Barter v. Burton Garland Revocable Trust, 124 So.3d 152, 156 (Ala.Civ.App.2013) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Motes v. Midland Funding, LLC
...enter summary judgment for a party based on an affirmative defense that was not pleaded by the parties. Wausau Dev. Corp. v. Natural Gas & Oil, Inc. , 144 So.3d 309, 315 (Ala. 2013). Motes does not mention collateral estoppel in his Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. ......
-
Motes v. Midland Funding, LLC
...enter summary judgment for a party based on an affirmative defense that was not pleaded by the parties. Wausau Dev. Corp. v. Natural Gas & Oil, Inc. , 144 So.3d 309, 315 (Ala. 2013). Motes does not mention collateral estoppel in his Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. ......
-
Douglas Landscape & Design, L.L.C. v. Miles
...Century Financial Enterprises, Inc., 2000 WL 282445, at *4–5 (6th Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) (same); Wausau Dev. Corp. v. Natural Gas & Oil, 144 So.3d 309, 314–15 (Ala.2013) (holding claim that party lacks capacity to sue based on closed-door statute is waived if not pled as an affirma......
-
Pope, Mcglamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, P.C. v. Dubois
...on such grounds certainly does not deprive the trial court of ... subject-matter jurisdiction."), and Wausau Dev. Corp. v. Natural Gas & Oil, Inc., 144 So.3d 309, 312 (Ala. 2013) (quoting Penick v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F & A M of Alabama, Inc., 46 So.3d 416, 425 (Ala. 201......