Brigham Oil & Gas, L.P. v. Lario Oil & Gas Co.
801 N.W.2d 677
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Testerman’s will devised her North Dakota mineral rights share to Avery; estate administration and probate in California affected title to those rights.
- Testerman died in 2004; California probate (2005 final distribution) allocated mineral rights to Avery, $6,000 to Navarro, and other residuary shares to Navarro’s and Avery’s routes as per the will.
- Avery’s 2007 Dublin oil and gas lease (recorded 2007) covered the subject mineral lands and was later assigned to Lario.
- Navarro and Avery entered a settlement in November–December 2008 allocating mineral interest ownership (Avery 100% of Avery-inherited interests; 25% to Avery and 75% to Navarro of the brother’s inheritance); Brigham and Lario were not parties to this agreement.
- Navarro entered into a 2008 lease with Triple for the subject lands; Avery’s Dublin lease and Navarro’s Triple lease predated several post-distribution instruments; Brigham later asserted an interest in production payments.
- Brigham filed suit in 2009 seeking production payments; district court granted summary judgment favoring Lario, determining the Dublin lease controlled and Brigham had no leasehold interest; Navarro died, and Triple/Thompson sought intervention and relief from judgment, which the district court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dublin’s Dublin–Avery lease controls Brigham’s claimed interest | Brigham—claims Brigham has an interest despite Dublin’s prior lease. | Lario—Dublin lease is the controlling lease; Brigham has no interest. | Yes; Dublin lease controls Brigham’s interest; Brigham has no leasehold interest. |
| Whether the Avery–Navarro settlement binds Brigham or Lario | Avery/Navarro settlement should bind Brigham and Lario as successors. | Settlement binds only those who were parties to it; Brigham and Lario not bound. | No; settlement binds only Avery and Navarro; Brigham and Lario not affected. |
| Whether Navarro’s holographic codicil affected ownership and was properly presented | Navarro’s codicil should have been presented to California court; affects ownership. | Codicil never probated or judicially determined; not presented to California court. | Navarro failed to present or probate codicil; no effect on ownership. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wacker Oil, Inc. v. LoneTree Energy, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1990) (ancillary probate and transfer of title to ND property; ancillary proceedings required)
- Estate of Dionne, 2009 ND 172, 772 N.W.2d 891 (N.D. 2009) (settlements binding on successors; applicability to probate interests)
- Schroeder v. Burleigh Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 252 N.W.2d 893 (N.D. 1977) (indispensable party and void-judgment concepts in post-judgment context)
- Quick v. Fischer, 417 N.W.2d 843 (N.D. 1988) (post-judgment intervention timing considerations)
- In re C.R.H., 2000 ND 222, 620 N.W.2d 175 (N.D. 2000) (late intervention analysis; prejudice to existing parties)
- Estate of Hedstrom, 472 N.W.2d 454 (N.D. 1991) (notice in family settlements; effect on rights of nonparties)