Spectrum Oil, LLC v. West
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01624-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-11-2010 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Oil & gas - Receivership - Section 11-17-33 - M.R.C.P. 56 - Necessary party - M.R.C.P. 19 - Section 11-17-34 - M.R.C.P. 81(a)(12) - Responsive pleading - M.R.C.P. 12 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment; Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-27-2008 Appealed from: WAYNE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Franklin C. McKenzie, Jr. Disposition: GRANTED TRINITY USA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENIED SPECTRUM OIL’S MOTION TO DISMISS Case Number: 2008-202 |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2008-CA-02155-COA Spectrum Oil, LLC v. Trinity USA Partnership, L.P. and Marie M. Arledge et al.; Wayne Chancery Court; LC Case #: 2008-53; Ruling Date: 12/15/2008; Ruling Judge: Franklin McKenzie, Jr. | ||
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Spectrum Oil, LLC |
DAVID M. RATCLIFF |
||
| Appellee: | Marlon West, Wayne County Chancery Clerk, as Receiver of the Undivided Mineral Interest Claim or Owned by the Unknown Heirs of Thomas (Bob) Davis, Deceased , as Authorized by Final Decree and Order in Wayne County in Cause No. 2008-53; Any Children or Their Heirs of Thomas (Bob) Davis, Deceased, Trinity USA Partnership, L.P. and Marie M. Arledge, et al. | JEFFERSON D. STEWART, MICHAEL SCOTT JONES, J. SHANNON CLARK |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Oil & gas - Receivership - Section 11-17-33 - M.R.C.P. 56 - Necessary party - M.R.C.P. 19 - Section 11-17-34 - M.R.C.P. 81(a)(12) - Responsive pleading - M.R.C.P. 12 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Spectrum Oil, LLC had established a receivership on behalf of the purported descendants of Thomas (Bob) Davis. The court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the oil, gas, and mineral leasees and the mineral owners, collectively referred to as “Trinity USA,” in their suit to remove the receivership as a cloud on their title. The chancellor granted a default judgment against the descendants of Thomas (Bob) Davis and summary judgment against all other defendants finding no genuine issue that Thomas (Bob) Davis had had any descendants. Thus, there was no interest for Spectrum Oil to acquire and no need for the receivership, which the chancery court dissolved ab initio. Spectrum Oil appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Receivership Spectrum Oil argues that the chancellor erred by ruling that there must be a descendant of Thomas (Bob) Davis in order to sustain the receivership and the receivership lease pursuant to section 11-17-33. Trinity USA, as the movant under M.R.C.P. 56, has the job of persuading the court, first, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and, second, that on the basis of the facts established, it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Spectrum Oil, as the nonmoving party, must support its claim by more than a mere scintilla of colorable evidence, but instead its evidence must be such that a fair-minded jury could return a favorable verdict. Trinity USA sustained its burden of proving that there was not sufficient evidence to establish an essential element of fact regarding Spectrum Oil’s claim to retain the receivership; the essential element being that there were descendants of Thomas (Bob) Davis who had a clear right to the mineral interests involved. The purpose of the receivership is to preserve the property, which is the subject of the litigation, and to provide full protection to the parties’ rights to the property until a final disposition of the issues can be made. A receivership will stand only when the party moving for it shows that it has a legal or equitable right to file for such relief. Spectrum Oil and its reputed claimants, the heirs of Thomas (Bob) Davis, have no interest in any mineral interests of the property in question simply because there are no descendants of Thomas (Bob) Davis. Therefore, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion when he dissolved the receivership ab initio. Issue 2: Necessary party Spectrum Oil argues that the State of Mississippi was a necessary party to the receivership and subsequent proceedings pursuant to M.R.C.P. 19 and section 11-17-34, which provides that unclaimed royalties in a receivership escheat to the State after being unclaimed for ten years. Because there is no interest to be placed into receivership, no royalties could ever escheat to the State. Spectrum Oil cannot call upon Rule 19 to aid its argument, since M.R.C.P. 81(a)(12) specifically limits applicability of the rules for proceedings brought under section 11-17-33. Despite Spectrum Oil’s argument that the State must be a party to the action, Spectrum Oil did nothing to add the State as a party. Issue 3: Responsive pleading Spectrum Oil argues is that it should have been allowed ten days under M.R.C.P. 12 to file a responsive pleading after the chancellor denied its motion to dismiss. Rule 12(a) provides that the time for filing a responsive pleading is altered by the filing of a Rule 12(b) motion. If the court denies the motion, the responsive pleading must be served within ten days after the notice of the court’s action. Rule 12(a) does not require that other proceedings be held in abeyance pending the court’s ruling on the motion or during the ten-day period to file a responsive pleading. The comments to M.R.C.P. 56 state that a Rule 56 motion may always be made by the defendant before answering and under certain circumstances may be made by the plaintiff before the responsive pleading is interposed. This is one of those circumstances. Although Spectrum Oil was not required to file a responsive pleading until its Rule 12(b) motion was ruled upon, the motion for summary judgment was properly filed and considered after the expiration of thirty days from the filing of the complaint, even though no responsive pleading from Spectrum Oil was on file. Summary judgment for Trinity USA was not granted because of the lack of a responsive pleading by Spectrum Oil, but because Spectrum Oil did not come forward with any proof of a genuine issue of material fact in response to Trinity USA’s motion for summary judgment. Spectrum Oil was given proper notice and the opportunity to respond to Trinity USA’s motion for summary judgment but did not do so. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
