Ascent Resources - Marcellus, LLC v. Galford Wadsworth Jr.
16-0566
| W. Va. | May 19, 2017Background
- Respondents (Wadsworths) own the surface of 185.25 acres in Tyler County, WV; petitioner Ascent (formerly American Energy – Marcellus) sought to construct a 10–13 acre well pad on their property to drain gas from neighboring tracts via horizontal wells.
- Petitioner filed a verified complaint alleging it owned 100% of the working interest in the Marcellus formation beneath respondents’ property based on six leases (Exhibits A‑1 to A‑6) and claimed successor-in-interest status.
- Respondents answered by denying they could determine petitioner’s alleged interest from the attached exhibits and repeatedly disputed petitioner’s proof and chain of title.
- At an evidentiary hearing petitioner offered testimony from two employees and maps; it did not introduce chain-of-title documents or assignments establishing continuity of the leases into petitioner’s ownership.
- The circuit court found the record lacked evidence that the 1980s leases remained in effect or that petitioner was a successor in interest, noted acreage discrepancies, and dismissed the complaint for failure to prove ownership.
- Petitioner sought appellate judicial notice of post‑record deeds/assignments and later filed a Rule 60(b) motion; this Court declined the judicial‑notice motion and affirmed the dismissal, also finding no entitlement to Rule 60(b) relief on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner proved it owned the working interest beneath respondents’ surface | Petitioner: ownership established by leases attached to complaint and employee testimony/maps | Respondents: exhibits do not establish chain of title; proof insufficient; denial in answer | Held: petitioner failed to prove valid mineral estate or succession; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the trial court should have taken judicial notice of county deeds/assignments not admitted below | Petitioner: court could judicially notice public records in county clerk’s office under Rule 201 | Respondents: documents were not part of the record and facts in them are not immune from dispute; appellate court should not take notice | Held: Court previously refused petitioner’s motion for judicial notice and declined to revisit it; evidence was not part of record below |
| Whether respondents’ answer amounted to acquiescence to petitioner’s ownership claim | Petitioner: respondents never effectively disputed ownership | Respondents: answer expressly denied and stated they could not determine ownership from exhibits | Held: trial court permissibly treated the denial as requiring petitioner to prove ownership; petitioner failed to do so |
| Whether the circuit court erred in refusing to consider petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion after appeal was filed | Petitioner: sought relief under Rule 60(b) based on additional evidence | Respondents: notice of appeal deprived trial court of jurisdiction | Held: Court found it unnecessary to decide jurisdictional timing; on the merits no basis for Rule 60(b) relief was shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Fox, 193 W. Va. 657, 458 S.E.2d 327 (W. Va. 1995) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for ultimate disposition; clearly erroneous for factual findings; de novo for legal questions)
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (definition of "clearly erroneous" standard)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, North Carolina, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (appellate deference to trial court factual findings when plausible in light of the record)