980 N.W.2d 200
N.D.2022Background
- Whitetail Wave LLC sued XTO Energy and the State (Board of University and School Lands, Department of Water Resources, and Director) seeking to quiet title to mineral interests in Sections 25, 26, 27, 34, and 35 of T154N, R96W and asserting related claims (breach of lease, unpaid royalties, trespass, slander of title, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, constructive/constitutional takings, and constructive fraud).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the State and entered a judgment quieting title in the State for specific mineral acres in the SE1/4 and SW1/4 of Section 27 and dismissed Whitetail’s remaining claims against the State; that judgment was silent as to Sections 25, 26, 34, and 35.
- The court later granted summary judgment for XTO, dismissing Whitetail’s complaint “in its entirety” and entering a judgment that stated it disposed of all claims between the parties, but that judgment too was silent about Whitetail’s quiet title claims in Sections 25, 26, 34, and 35.
- Whitetail’s quiet title claims for Sections 25, 26, 34, and 35 remained unresolved, and unresolved ownership disputes could affect whether XTO properly withheld royalties.
- Neither party requested, nor did the district court enter, a Rule 54(b) certification finding no just reason to delay an appeal from the partial dispositions.
- The Supreme Court concluded the district-court judgments were not final and, lacking Rule 54(b) certification, dismissed Whitetail’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district-court judgments were final and appealable | Judgments were final and appealable; appellant entitled to review | Judgments were not final because some claims remained unresolved and no 54(b) certification existed | Not final; appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction |
| Whether the court disposed of all claims between the parties | The judgment against XTO disposed of Whitetail’s entire complaint | Several quiet-title claims (Sections 25, 26, 34, 35) remained unresolved despite the dismissal language | Judgment was silent as to those sections; claims remain unresolved |
| Whether unresolved quiet-title/mineral disputes prevent appellate review | Whitetail argued remaining issues did not preclude review of other rulings | Defendants argued unresolved title disputes are material and preclude a final appeal | Quiet-title claims remain and preclude a final judgment on all claims |
| Whether Rule 54(b) certification was required for a partial final judgment | Whitetail implicitly argued certification unnecessary | Defendants and the Court: certification required to permit piecemeal appeal | No Rule 54(b) certification was made; certification required; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- James Vault & Precast Co. v. B&B Hot Oil Serv., Inc., 908 N.W.2d 108 (N.D. 2018) (discusses final-judgment requirement and Rule 54(b) certification in multi-claim cases)
- In re A.B., 707 N.W.2d 75 (N.D. 2005) (only final judgments and statutorily enumerated orders are appealable)
- Capps v. Weflen, 826 N.W.2d 605 (N.D. 2013) (district court must independently assess and certify under Rule 54(b) before permitting partial appeal)
- Sanderson v. Walsh Cnty., 712 N.W.2d 842 (N.D. 2006) (right to appeal is governed by statute and is jurisdictional)
- Union State Bank v. Woell, 357 N.W.2d 234 (N.D. 1984) (burden on proponent to show prejudice or hardship to justify Rule 54(b) certification)