Nicholson v. Upland Industrial Development Co.
2012 Ark. 326
Ark.2012Background
- Warranty deed (1908) reserved all coal and mineral deposits; Upland is successor to grantor; Nicholsons (appellants) are successors to Western Tie & Timber; SEECO interpleader filed to determine mineral ownership and deposited royalties; bench trial held; 2011 order dismissed appellants' quiet-title claims and quieted title in Upland; appeal challenges Strohacker interpretation, burden of proof, jury trial right, estoppel/laches, and attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper application of the Strohacker doctrine | Nicholsons argue misinterpretation of Strohacker; require exploration/production evidence and local usage. | Upland contends the circuit court correctly applied Strohacker, considering area usage and surrounding counties. | affirmed interpretation and application of Strohacker. |
| Burden of proof in quiet-title action | Nicholsons contend Upland should bear burden to prove reservation within minerals. | Upland argues quiet-title plaintiff bears burden. | burden on appellants not reversible error; no prejudice shown. |
| Right to a jury trial | Nicholsons claim entitlement to jury trial as ejectment-like action. | Action is quiet title in equity; no jury right. | no reversible error; no right to jury trial. |
| Estoppel and laches as bar to relief | Nicholsons deny detrimental reliance essential to estoppel/laches. | Long-delayed claim and knowledge of reservations support estoppel/laches. | alternative basis affirmed by upholding reservation finding; estoppel/laches not reached on appeal. |
| Attorney fees awarded to SEECO | Nicholsons challenge SEECO’s disinterested status and fee award. | SEECO is disinterested; award proper under Rule 22(b). | appellants lack standing to challenge fee award; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v. Strohacker, 202 Ark. 645, 152 S.W.2d 557 (Ark. 1941) (set framework for minerals reserved as of time usage and general practice)
- Stegall v. Bugh, 228 Ark. 632, 310 S.W.2d 251 (Ark. 1958) (defines meaning of 'mineral' by general legal/commercial usage)
- Ahne v. Reinhart and Donovan Co., 240 Ark. 691, 401 S.W.2d 565 (Ark. 1966) (admissibility of contemporaneous evidence to interpret ambiguous mineral terms)
- First Nat’l Bank v. Cruthis, 360 Ark. 528, 203 S.W.3d 88 (Ark. 2005) (jury trial right not guaranteed for quiet-title where equity jurisdiction applies)
- Bobo v. Jones, 364 Ark. 564, 222 S.W.3d 197 (Ark. 2006) (quiet-title burden on moving party; standard applied)
- Pearman v. Pearman, 144 Ark. 528, 222 S.W. 1064 (Ark. 1920) (distinguishes ejectment from quiet-title in equity)