THR Minerals, LLC. v. Robinson
2017 ND 78
| N.D. | 2017Background
- THR Minerals sued to quiet title to mineral and royalty interests in a Williams County, ND tract; all parties stipulated to THR’s title theory except Charles, Paul, and William Robinson.
- Central dispute turns on a 1942 "Assignment of Royalty" from Ivan and Oleta Metzger to T.H. Richardson conveying “six and one-fourth per cent (6¼%) Royalty, of all the oil and of all the gas produced and saved from the hereinafter described lands” (320 acres).
- At the time of the 1942 conveyance the Metzgers owned one-third of the minerals under the described tract.
- THR contends the assignment conveyed a 6.25% royalty of production from the entire described tract (i.e., 6.25% of all production).
- The Robinsons contend the assignment burdened only the Metzgers’ one-third interest—i.e., 6.25% of the Metzgers’ one-third share (a proportionate reduction).
- The district court granted summary judgment to THR, holding the assignment was unambiguous and conveyed 6.25% of production from the entire tract; the Robinsons appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (THR) | Defendant's Argument (Robinsons) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the 1942 assignment convey 6.25% of production from the entire described lands, or only 6.25% of the Metzgers’ one‑third interest? | The assignment’s language (“6¼% Royalty, of all the oil and of all the gas produced and saved from the hereinafter described lands”) gives a 6.25% royalty on all production from the described lands. | The word “our” limits the grant to the Metzgers’ own share; they conveyed 6.25% of their one‑third interest (no proportionate‑reduction clause needed). | The court affirmed: the assignment is unambiguous and conveys 6.25% of production from the entire described tract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Markgraf v. Welker, 873 N.W.2d 26 (N.D. 2015) (summary judgment standard and appellate review).
- Border Res., LLC v. Irish Oil & Gas, Inc., 869 N.W.2d 758 (N.D. 2015) (contract interpretation as question of law when unambiguous).
- Golden v. SM Energy Co., 826 N.W.2d 610 (N.D. 2013) (clear unambiguous assignment precludes extrinsic evidence).
- Northern Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Creighton, 830 N.W.2d 556 (N.D. 2013) (summary judgment inappropriate when inferences on disputed facts are required).
- Nygaard v. Robinson, 341 N.W.2d 349 (N.D. 1983) (distinguishing findings of fact from conclusions of law).