Whitetail Wave LLC v. XTO Energy, Inc.
Docket Number | 20220061 |
Decision Date | 29 September 2022 |
Citation | 980 N.W.2d 200 |
Parties | WHITETAIL WAVE LLC, a Montana Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff and Appellant v. XTO ENERGY, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Board of University and School Lands of the State of North Dakota, the State of North Dakota, and Department of Water Resources and Director, Defendants and Appellees |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Joshua A. Swanson, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellant.
Spencer D. Ptacek (argued) and Lawrence Bender (on brief), Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellee XTO Energy, Inc.
David P. Garner (argued) and Jennifer L. Verleger (on brief), Assistant Attorneys General, Bismarck, ND, for defendants and appellees The Board of University and School Lands of the State of North Dakota, The State of North Dakota, and Department of Water Resources and Director.
[¶1] Whitetail Wave LLC ("Whitetail") appeals from two judgments entered by the district court following the entry of orders granting summary judgment and dismissing claims asserted by Whitetail against XTO Energy, Inc. ("XTO") and the Board of University of School Lands of the State of North Dakota, the State of North Dakota, and the Department of Water Resources and Director (collectively "State"). Whitetail asserts the court erred by dismissing its claim asserting the State had committed an unconstitutional taking of its property interest, by dismissing Whitetail's trespass, slander of title, unjust enrichment and constructive trust claims asserted against the State, by determining XTO had not breached its lease agreement by failing to pay royalties owed to Whitetail, by determining XTO did not violate N.D.C.C. § 47-16-39.1, and by dismissing Whitetail's constructive fraud claim asserted against XTO. Because we conclude there are quiet title claims asserted by Whitetail remaining unresolved, we dismiss the appeal.
[¶2] Whitetail sued the State and XTO, requesting the district court determine ownership of certain minerals in McKenzie County and asserting various other claims, including breach of an oil and gas lease, failure to pay royalties for production from minerals, and an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. All of the parties moved for summary judgment. The court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, dismissed Whitetail's claims against the State, and ordered the entry of a judgment. The court later granted XTO's motion for summary judgment, dismissed Whitetail's claims against XTO, and ordered the entry of a second judgment.
[¶3] Whitetail specifically pled a claim to quiet title from any claims of the defendants to mineral interests located in sections 25, 26, 27, 34 and 35 of Township 154 North, Range 96 West. The judgment dismissing the claims against the State is limited to quieting title in favor of the State in 85.79 mineral acres within the SE1/4 of Section 27 and 123.92 mineral acres within the SW1/4 of Section 27, and dismissing all of the remaining claims asserted against the State. The judgment is silent with regard to Sections 25, 26, 34 and 35.
[¶4] The judgment dismissing the claims against XTO dismissed Whitetail's complaint against XTO "in its entirety." The judgment further provides it disposes of all claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, and issues raised between the parties. The judgment is silent regarding Whitetail's claim to quiet title, with regard to the defendants, in Sections 25, 26, 34 and 35.
[¶5] Whitetail's claim to quiet title in Sections 25, 26, 34 and 35 remains unresolved. Additionally, several of Whitetail's claims include the assertion the State improperly asserted claims over mineral acres it did not have an interest in, or alternatively, there was not a genuine dispute over those mineral interests and XTO should not have been withholding royalty payments owed to Whitetail.
[¶6] We have previously reviewed the propriety of an appeal in cases where less than all of the underlying claims have been resolved, even when none of the parties to the appeal have requested review. See James Vault & Precast Co. v. B&B Hot Oil Serv., Inc. , 2018 ND 63, ¶ 9, 908 N.W.2d 108 ( ). In James Vault we noted the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gonzalez v. Perales
...Kainz v. Jacam Chem. Co. 2013, LLC, 2023 ND 42, ¶ 9, 987 N.W.2d 320 (citing Whitetail Wave LLC v. XTO Energy, Inc., 2022 ND 171, ¶ 6, 980 N.W.2d 200). "[S]ubject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred agreement, consent, or waiver." State v. Winegar, 2017 ND 106, ¶ 6, 893 N.W.2d 741 (citat......