Dennis Kidder v. Montani Energy, LLC, 16-1109

In 1910 A.J. and Letha Rice conveyed four parcels to four children but expressly "reserved" the "usual royalty of one eighth of all the oil produced and saved" and compensation for marketed gas to be shared among six children.
The reserved interests passed to the Rice children (and heirs); Mary Kidder later conveyed most of her tract in 1919 “subject to the same reservations.” Petitioners are Mary Kidder’s heirs (the Kidder heirs).
Between 2010–2014 Statoil acquired oil-and-gas leases covering several tracts (identified as Tracts 120, 121, 123, 124); other parties (Fouts, Whittle, Montani, Rice heirs) also litigated competing claims.
In 2014 Statoil moved for summary judgment; the circuit court concluded the 1910 deeds reserved only a royalty interest (not oil-and-gas in place) and granted summary judgment to Statoil as to Tracts 120, 121, and 124.
Kidder heirs appealed, arguing (1) the 1910 reservations reserved oil and gas in place rather than mere royalties, and (2) the circuit court failed to adjudicate ownership of Tract 123.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1910 reservations reserved oil & gas in place or only a royalty interest	The reservation of the "usual royalty" (and authority cited from earlier cases) reserved the oil and gas in place	The deed language (royalty "when produced", rights to lease and receive bonuses) indicates a conveyance of the minerals subject only to a royalty reservation	The reservations were royalties only; deed language reserves fractional royalty upon production, not the minerals in place
Whether the circuit court erred by not adjudicating ownership of Tract No. 123	Kidder heirs: court failed to resolve ownership of all oil and gas conveyed in 1910, including Tract 123	Statoil: its motion sought relief only as to Tracts 120, 121, 124; court not required to grant relief as to issues not presented	Court declined to review ownership of Tract 123 because it was not decided below and thus not properly before the Court

Davis v. Hardman, 148 W. Va. 82, 133 S.E.2d 77 (W. Va. 1963) (reservation of royalty "when produced" construed as royalty interest only, not reservation of minerals in place)
Paxton v. Benedum-Trees Oil Co., 80 W. Va. 187, 94 S.E. 472 (W. Va. 1917) (language that grants royalties can in some contexts be construed as conveying oil when inconsistent terms exist)
McDonald v. Bennett, 112 W. Va. 347, 164 S.E. 298 (W. Va. 1932) (emphasizes significance of words like "that may be produced" in distinguishing royalty from minerals in place)
Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (W. Va. 1994) (standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)