DWG Oil & Gas Acquisitions, LLC v. Southern Country Farms, Inc.
2017 W. Va. LEXIS 17
W. Va.2017Background
- DWG sought title to oil and gas under a Marshall County parcel based on a chain of title tracing to heirs of Palemon P. (P.P.) Campbell, Sr. (Campbell, Sr.).
- Three historical deeds (1908 and two in 1913) control: (1) April 10, 1908 deed from Campbell, Sr. to P.P. Campbell, Jr. (Campbell Deed #1) which "excepted" fifty acres and "reserved" coal, oil and gas; (2) an April 10, 1908 deed conveying the excepted fifty acres in trust for Laura C. McHenry with an oil-and-gas reservation (Campbell Deed #1, trust deed); (3) May 27, 1913 deed from Campbell, Jr. back to Campbell, Sr. (Campbell Deed #2) referencing the 1908 exceptions; and (4) June 5, 1913 deed from Campbell, Sr. to A.B. Campbell (Campbell Deed #3) stating the conveyance was "subject to" prior reservations.
- DWG argued the 1908 reservation retained the minerals to Campbell, Sr., so minerals passed to his heirs (and eventually to DWG) when he died in 1922; A.B. Campbell therefore only took surface in 1913.
- Respondents (successors to A.B. Campbell) argued Campbell Deed #3 conveyed both surface and minerals to A.B. Campbell; the 1908 language was ambiguous or applied only to the separately conveyed fifty-acre tract.
- The circuit court held that (a) any earlier mineral severance was extinguished by merger when Campbell, Jr. reconveyed (Campbell Deed #2), so Campbell, Sr. held fee simple before Deed #3; and (b) the 1913 conveyance did not re-sever minerals by clear, definite language—thus minerals passed to A.B. Campbell and now to respondents. DWG appealed; Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DWG) | Defendant's Argument (Respondents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1908 deed language reserved minerals to Campbell, Sr., leaving only surface to A.B. Campbell in 1913 | 1908 "excepting...also reserving...all the coal oil and Gas" retained minerals in Campbell, Sr., so heirs inherited them | The 1908 language is ambiguous or limited to the separately conveyed fifty acres; Deed #3 conveyed both surface and minerals to A.B. Campbell | Court held any attempted severance was ambiguous and, even if a severance existed, it merged when Campbell, Jr. reconveyed; Deed #3 did not clearly re-sever minerals—respondents hold minerals |
| Whether ambiguity in the 1908 deed must be construed for the grantee (benefitting A.B. Campbell) | Ambiguity should not defeat the clear reservation of minerals to Campbell, Sr. | Ambiguities must be construed against the grantor and in favor of the grantee; language is inartful and not sufficiently definite | Court applied rule favoring grantee when deed ambiguous and ruled in favor of respondents |
| Whether the reference in later deeds to prior reservations effectively preserved a mineral severance | DWG: references in Deed #2 and #3 show intent to preserve reservation | Respondents: references are perfunctory and cannot revive an extinguished severance without clear language | Court held mere reference was insufficient to cut the fee and re-sever minerals |
| Whether merger doctrine extinguished any previously severed mineral interest when Campbell, Jr. reconveyed | DWG: any reservation survived reconveyance and remained separate | Respondents: when Campbell, Jr. reconveyed, surface and mineral title merged in Campbell, Sr., extinguishing a separate mineral interest | Court held merger doctrine applied; separate mineral interest was extinguished upon reconveyance, so Campbell, Sr. held fee before Deed #3 |
Key Cases Cited
- Maddy v. Maddy, 87 W. Va. 581, 105 S.E. 803 (1921) (courts must construe written instruments as a whole to effect parties' intent)
- Hall v. Hartley, 146 W. Va. 328, 119 S.E.2d 759 (1961) (exceptions or reservations that reduce a clear grant must be expressed in certain and definite language)
- Paxton v. Benedum-Trees Oil Co., 80 W. Va. 187, 94 S.E. 472 (1917) (where deed admits two constructions, adopt the one most favorable to the grantee)
- Cox v. Amick, 195 W. Va. 608, 466 S.E.2d 459 (1995) (declaratory judgment reviewed de novo; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Henline v. Miller, 117 W. Va. 439, 185 S.E. 852 (1936) (doctrine of merger: acquisition of fee by owner of dominant or servient estate extinguishes easement or separate servitude)
- Zimmerer v. Romano, 223 W. Va. 769, 679 S.E.2d 601 (2009) (reiterating rules on deed construction and ambiguities favoring grantee)