Ecosystem Resources, L.C. v. Broadbent Land & Resources, LLC
2012 WY 49
| Wyo. | 2012Background
- Union Pacific timber reservations appeared in three early-1900s deeds (1906 Graham, 1908 Heber, 1909 Chesney).
- Ecosystem Resources challenged the district court’s interpretation of timber as a perpetual interest or a reasonable-time limit.
- On remand, the district court held timber meant only trees existing at the deed dates and of merchantable size, with removal in a reasonable time; Broadbent won judgment against Ecosystem.
- The court’s analysis relied on facts and circumstances surrounding the deeds, contemporary definitions, and Union Pacific’s purposes for reserving timber.
- No merchantable timber of any kind remains on the properties; trial evidence supported a limited, then-existing-trees interpretation and no ongoing rights to future growth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether timber reservations were limited to then-existing timber. | Ecosystem: intent was perpetual in some form | Broadbent: reservations apply only to then-existing timber | Affirmative; timber restricted to then-existing trees |
| Whether timber reservations included only merchantable trees (size). | Ecosystem: broader interpretation of timber | Broadbent: nine-inch-diameter merchantable standard | Affirmative; timber limited to merchantable trees existing at the date of the deeds |
| Whether the district court properly considered facts and circumstances to interpret 'timber'. | Ecosystem: use of circumstances to ascertain general intent | Broadbent: evidence supports then-existing timber understanding | Affirmed; evidence supported then-existing timber interpretation |
| Whether the court erred in addressing adverse possession and related arguments. | Ecosystem: adverse-possession claims were viable | Broadbent: district court properly concluded against perpetual growth and similar claims | Not necessary to decide; affirmed without addressing it |
Key Cases Cited
- Ecosystem Resources, L.C. v. Broadbent Land & Resources, LLC, 2007 WY 87 (Wy. 2007) (rejected per se reasonable-time rule; allowed evidence of intent via circumstances)
- Hickman v. Groves, 2003 WY 76 (Wy. 2003) (facts and circumstances aid in understanding contract terms)
- Mullinnix LLC v. HKB Royalty Trust, 2006 WY 14 (Wy. 2006) (facts and circumstances used to interpret terms like 'oil rights')
- Boley v. Greenough, 2001 WY 47 (Wy. 2001) (circumstances inform meaning of 'overriding royalty')
- Newman v. RAG Wyoming Land Co., 2002 WY 132 (Wy. 2002) (defines plain meaning and use of circumstances)