Kysar v. BP Am. Prod. Co.
1 N.M. Ct. App. 491
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiffs own the 600-acre surface estate of the Kysar Ranch along the Animas River.
- BP (and predecessor Amoco) holds leases and operates six wells on the ranch; Back Gate Road is used for access, Bridge Road is limited.
- Historically, 1948 leases and 1953-1983 chain of conveyances separated mineral from surface rights, with reserved ingress/egress rights.
- A 2000 settlement resolved damages and surface-use disputes but not BP’s right to use Back Gate Road to access the E-1 Well on BLM land outside the ranch.
- A 2005 settlement granted BP an easement to access the E-1 Well through the Kysar Ranch, but did not resolve access to other wells or other matters.
- Before trial, in limine rulings restricted evidence and, after jury selection, the parties entered a stipulated directed verdict in BP’s favor while preserving appeal rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a stipulated directed verdict is appealable. | Kysars reserve appeal rights; rulings dispositive; appeal permitted. | Consent judgments generally not appealable; no exception. | Yes; appealable under conditions (dispositive rulings + reservation + stipulation + court approval). |
| Whether district court in limine rulings on Kysar opinions were reversible error. | Kysars should be allowed to reference or introduce the opinions as evidence. | No adequate record; pre-trial ruling improper without context; likely harmless. | Not reviewable for reversible error due to lack of record and absence of trial context. |
| Whether in limine rulings prohibiting misrepresentation evidence were reversible error. | Pleadings sufficient to raise misrepresentation/mistake; evidence should be admitted. | Plaintiffs did not plead fraud/misrepresentation with particularity; evidence barred. | Exclusion of misrepresentation evidence was error; pleadings adequate to raise issues; evidence should be admissible. |
| Whether the stipulated order should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. | Stipulation preserves appealable issues; district court approved; proper to remand. | Order effectively terminates case; limited review. | Stipulated order reversed; case remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallup Trading Co. v. Michaels, 86 N.M. 304 (1974) (consent judgments generally not appealable; exceptions limited)
- Ward v. Broadwell, 1 N.M. 75 (1854) (early precedent recognizing exceptions to consent-judgment rule)
- Rancho del Villacito Condos., Inc. v. Weisfeld, 121 N.M. 52 (1995) (lack of consent exception when adverse ruling precludes recovery)
- State v. Martinez, 132 P.3d 1042 (NMSC 2002) (necessity of a sufficient record for appellate review)
- Proper v. Mowry, 568 P.2d 236 (1977) (motions in limine are interlocutory and reviewable contextually)