*1 2010 WY 37 MORRIS, Appellant McClain

Julie

(Plaintiff),

v. COMPANY, OIL AND GAS (Defendant).

Appellee Company,

CMS Oil Gas (Defendant),

Appellant

v. Morris, Appellee

Julie McClain (Plaintiff). S-08-0103,

Nos. S-08-0104.

Supreme Wyoming. Court 25, 2010.

March

Representing Julie McClain Morris: Pat- rick G. L. Davidson Rebecca Winkler Daly Associates, LLC, Gillette, Wyo- Law ming. Argument by Mr. Davidson and Ms. Winkler. Company: Oil and Gas

Representing CMS applying district court err in B. Did the penalty Wyoming forth in Reese, set D. Hill and Orintha $100.00 F. Drake Thomas 30-5-808(c)? LLP, Brown, Massey, Drew & Statute E. Karns by Mr. Reese. Wyoming. Argument Casper, refusing Did the district court err C. damages Morris] to award for the [Ms. *3 GOLDEN, VOIGT,C.J., and Before royalties? non-payment of BURKE, KITE, HILL, and JJ. court err in D. Did the district riding by CMS lieving brought that CMS After duction or Payment Act § 80-5-801 thru 30-5-805 KITE, Justice. ^[11] CMS Oil a bench Julie suit ultimately paying her was not and Gas McClain under interest trial, (WRPA), Wyo. the district court found properly the Company in Morris owns an over royalties, gas Wyoming Royalty (LexisNexis paid wells reporting pro (CMS). Ms. Stat. operated royalties Morris 2009). Ann. Be following In Act E. Did the district court err the cation of the safe-harbor ties under the [Ms. Morris]? [CMS] seq.) improper? appeal Act. Was (WYO. two properly No. the award of issues: S-08-0104, STAT. Wyoming Royalty Payment reported production to ANN. any reporting penal- CMS provision presents 80-5-801, in its found appli- the in et instances had Ms. Morris but in some due improve position 2. Did her [Ms. Morris] WRPA, by either not complied with the litigation, through so as to allow her to be placing in timely paying them to her or them any portion of a production as reporting and case? escrow imposed report

required. The district court vision. CMS ing penalties parties fees. remand port awarding CMS Ms. Morris asserts court erred duction and We affirm judgment attorney's and for further Ms. Morris concluding penalty, finding awarding applying due and against contends attorney's and CMS fees. proceedings. the district court erred part, it failed to CMS the WRPA escrow Ms. Morris properly appealed the district reverse in that CMS had fees, and awarded both cross reported pro applying the properly re attorney's appealed. part, paid pro and Wyoming. From wells in which Ms. Morris had an 2002, interests the funds in escrow as interests, royalty interest. CMS first sold from the wells obtained title her title. Because of the presumed CMS did not Ms. Morris owns in but also reflected produced minerals located opinions consistently pay in December of 1999. holder of FACTS minerals of 1999 overriding royalty overriding royalty listed Ms. Morris in title problems and her northeastern until production overriding problems, operated May place with ris [¥3] presents In appeal following issues: ISSUES No. S-08-0108, Ms. Mor- WRPA. had violated complaint In March of the WRPA which she by failing claimed that CMS Ms. Morris filed a timely or, alternatively, awarding pay her for A. Did the district court err account, due into an escrow non-pre- to the the amounts fees and costs by failing properly report production.1 vailing party? WRPA, Energy, addition to her claims under Ms. named Pennaco Inc. 1. Ms. Morris also (Pennaco) accounting alleged At the time she filed as a defendant. Morris asked for good breach of the covenant of faith and CMS each owned claims for her Pennaco complaint, roughly of the wells at issue. enrichment, of most 50% dealing, unjust and conver- and fair May its interest to Pennaco. CMS sold gave the WRPA Ms. sion. The district court held and Pennaco reached settlement statutory supplant- cause of action pri- was dismissed from the action and Pennaco Ms. Morris did not ed her common law claims. or to trial. complaint generally CMS answered de WRPA prior paying the funds into escrow claims,. parties proceeded nying the and Ms. Morris would not paid have been and, September discovery action, brought had she not however summary judgment.2 a motion for CMS filed paid CMS had her full as November motion, In deciding the the district court 2002-the payment. date of the last escrow parties' respective positions summarized the The district court also found that CMS did as follows: reports not submit required by imposed WRPA and statutory penalty Succinetly put, despite plethora report. failure to For reasons that will be date, pleadings process culmi- has explained in subsequent paragraphs, the dis parties agree nated with the unable on trict court awarded Ms. Morris argument substantive matters. [CMS's] up fees to the date that CMS had *4 straightforward . argues is a one: it royalty full, amounts due in and awarded upon in [Ms. defects Mor- discovery point through fees from that ris's] title to certain leases it escrowed trial. royalty payments and assisted [Ms. Mor- in curing such defects. Once

ris] defects DISCUSSION cured, timely [Ms. Morris's] title were paid [her], all sums owed to and thus has Royalty Payments 1. liability. no [17] Ms. Morris asserts CMS did not response [Ms. Morris's] is that after properly pay royalties her and the district years three wrangling [CMS] still court's that it did is incorrect. Con $9,367.64 owes her and late issue, sideration of this as well as the other payment interest, plus court costs at- and presented, requires issues an understanding fees, torney's plus penalties provisions of the WRPA. The of the WRPA which-aceording to her method of calcula- governing payment production for state in tion-total millionsof dollars. pertinent part as follows: briefs, After considering parties' support- Payment § production; 30-5-301. for ing arguments, documents and the district payment; payor. time for questions court determined of fact existed as (a) proceeds derived from the sale to whether CMS owed production any oil, producing well payments and violated the WRPA and it gas hydrocarbons or related in the state of denied the motion. Wyoming shall be persons legal- to all [16] The district court a ly thereto, convened three entitled except as hereinafter day bench trial. The provided, district court subse commencing later than six quently a issued decision finding that Ms. (6) months day after the first of the month had failed to that CMS following owed the date of first sale and thereaf- and, her royalty payments (60) additional al ter not later sixty days than after the though preponderance of the evidence end of the calendar month within which tended to show that fully CMS did not com subsequent sold, production is unless other ply with prior the WRPA to eserowing periods arrangements funds or for the first and in April of preponderance of the subsequent payments provided are for in a evidence also showed actually that CMS had person valid contract with persons or overpaid her the time of trial. dis proceeds. entitled to Payments such shall trict court concluded that CMS violated the directly person made persons or appeal ruling accounting on her common. for more than four feet of the law claims. Campbell County shelving Clerk of Court's space. immediately The matter at hand stems 2. In its November 2, 2005, decision letter on September filing by from the [CMS] summary judgment, CMS's motion for the dis- Summary Judgment of its Motion for ... and trict court described what had occurred in the intervening years accompanying, heavily-exhibited two and a half as follows: mem- ... engaged equally [Ms. [Ms. Morris and have orandum. filed CMS] Morris] in a sur- ex- motions, pleadings, feit responses [response] now hibit-laden on October legally operator production or to those entitled thereto the lessee sale

entitled by any party pay- day who assumes such after the first or within six months any legal arrange- obligation following under month the date of first sale ment . sixty days ment. thereafter not later than from the

end of the calendar month which subse- interest on late legally entitled to an interest ments ment. federally insured bank or lessee limits be made institution nation party legally to all principal and accrued interest penalty for ceeds from accounts shall be al interest owner to an escrow deposit § § 30-5-303. Any delay thirty the escrow 30-5-302. persons legally entitled thereto with- to all of entitlement specified all (30) instances where proceeds operator; production violation; other responsible days agent Wyoming.... Payment Payment payments. paid by determining any person from the date of reason within the time persons W.S. credited to of final thereto.: purchaser shall jurisdiction; the escrow 30-5-301(a), savings payment entitled to not affect payment shall Payment production; account in a production; .. in the the eventu- from such or other determi- and loan receipt cannot agent costs pay- pay- pro- of who into an 301(a). producing coal bed methane from the leases that, interest on the vember al, 5-302, quent production was sold. Section 80-5 trict court found that Ms. begin receiving ris Morris occurred November of 2000. The district court found any CMS was CMS did not 80-5-801(a), the district court found again funds CMS 80-5-303(a). by approved 24, 2000. CMS also did not escrow From the evidence 1999. The first sale of legally required suspended payments June of 2000.3 required on during the event it could December of 1999. deposit January CMS was unpaid royalty entitled to these escrow account balance. Sections 30- pay funds into an escrow period deposit 29, 2002; however, payments until No However, presented Morris penalty from June to to Ms. Mor Pursuant and, determine proceeds, proceeds the dis did not of 18% failing began at tri *5 Ms. and fees. 8, April until account which a well ment who violates the tion for the percent hydrocarbons is located has fied in W.S. principal legally entitled to proceedings brought pursuant to this arti- this article and the cle shall be entitled to recover over ceeds, plus article is liable to the costs and reasonable other (b) (a) Any all (18%) proceedings brought pursuant balance lessee or district court interest 30-5-801(a). unpaid legally responsible producing per from the due date proceeds at annum on the operator, purchaser or amount of such the rate person oil, provisions for the gas or jurisdiction fees. or or related county all eighteen persons produc- of this unpaid speci- pay- pro- any ber ited to distribute ute funds to Ms. Morris on paid Ms. Morris all she was due. The dis- trict court based this conclusion on lowing findings: payments 8, 2002; ris or into an escrow 2002, $7,054.76 either to sent Mrs. Morris a check for check for October court concluded that $28,189.86 25, 2002, and on CMS instructed 11, 2002, timely on $5,780.71. spite additional funds January royalties September the bank sent Ms. Morris a in the escrow account on make CMS had of CMS instructed finding The district court payments 25, 2002; ultimately before account, the bank to 830,2002, paid that CMS failed and on Novem- September $25,871.94; CMS to Ms. Mor- the district Ms. Morris suspended CMS had the bank the bank distrib- depos- fur- fol- 18, on presented provisions, to these CMS ther found from the [T8] Pursuant evidence pay proceeds required from the Ms. failed to meet burden "suspended that CMS that CMS was not her until June 3. The district court found 2000, sale, payments" January date of first to Ms. Morris on or about six months from the given December 2000. The basis forthis is unclear which was of 1999. law, than proving that was owed more court's conclusions of she $38,657.41, royalties however, or as interest subject either are to our de novo stan- dard review. timely pay failed to amounts CMS on the escrow. ¶ Mossbrook, v. 2009 WY Lieberman wells." vide was unreliable. She testified she was peal mination and the documentation paid. She contends CMS the fact revisions and overstatements ments further contributed determining whether she was She also asserts CMS's own documentation CMS's clearly her, is that erroneous because there records whether or the Ms. Morris's necessary to make that deter- court, paid royalties principal claim on to determine from claims CMS's after did not she was to the expert properly paid. findings was no provide problem it did properly on some witness pay- pro- way are ap- larities testified testified she solved themselves. The that her or interest 208 P.3d the district court's determination amount she was owed. Ms. Morris ancies he found were accounted for sented: no evidence Morris failed to dance omitted). as of November 2002. that, expert beyond the above way while there were some Viewing the evidence in accor reports, prove would know. Her unsure of she was owed principles, proving (Wyo.2009) $88,657.41 they ultimately only Ms. actual | amount but we expressly (citations discrep irregu uphold expert direct pre Ms. re govern our review of district court's deter minations With fact, is evidence to witnesses, and our review does not entail ings of fact re-weighing disputed evidence. mistake has been committed." the definite and firm conviction that a clearly trial regard they court on the entire evidence is left with not entitled to the limited review afford- admissible evidence are ed a "The regard presumptively judge are {{12] The following a bench trial: jury may is erroneous factual clearly given to assess the verdict. examine all of the will the trial court's support to the findings erroneous. not be set aside unless when, correct, following While the opportunity the record. Due it, credibility of a although the appellate A findings judge reviewing principles properly findings of the of the Find- there are is Ms. Morris's Wyoming. Additionally, fied he tinent necessary made the materials available to Ms. Morris payments from ages alty payments beyond those CMS had made ty payments. all the documentation that CMS had ed Evidence was sion that Ms. Morris was at offices in ris who had she was unable to contention that she could not cause of CMS's *6 her as November of 2002. concerning because CMS refused to that she was entitled to additional material he had in provided Ms. Morris Turning documentation acquired Denver, Colorado, expert acknowledged presented supporting Thus, actions, Ms. Morris's to Ms. Morris's claim that prove to ereditors of Mor an interest asserts Ms. Morris we address first her CMS's his during discovery. granted her interests. CMS prove possession expert the documen- damages produce in her expert and the same. access her dam- a conclu- failed generat- Casper, all royal testi- per- roy and be- "we assume that the evidence of the provided tation CMS was unreliable. She heavily give below is true and relies on an internal CMS memoran- dum dated 2001. The memoran- party every that reasonable inference fairly reasonably that can and pro- drawn dum states that internal into research from it. We do not substitute ourselves duction information had revealed incorrect facts; for the trial court as a finder of first dates of volume sale numbers and/or instead, findings approximately thirty reported we defer to those un- wells be- August 2000 tween and November 2000. they unsupported less are the record basis, or erroneous a matter of law." that On asserts presented. Again, supports for all wells the record production numbers interest, court's conclusion that Ms. Morris pertinent at all which she has times, untrustworthy. proof. We are not failed in her burden were tion takes that had tion, convinced. The the remedial rate into devoted to lems with its dum discloses CMS place reporting. numbers to ensure identified large portion already in the near future to ensure accu- explaining the remedial measures measures and reporting memo reflects an effort Thus, were corrected. been suggests accuracy had of the memorandum is while this memoran- put that would be some on some wells it into that of its initial place the mis- produc- prob- addi- and put ly The district court's the evidence in the Ms. Morris more than findings has been committed. CMS and definite and firm court's conclusionthat CMS admissible witnesses, opportunity are not Having giving evidence, clearly examined all of the due we conviction to assess the light she was due. régard are we erroneous. uphold most favorable to that a mistake ultimately paid to the district left with credibility Viewing proper- does not the information CMS Reporting 2. Lack of ultimately provided was unreliable. reporting provision The. [T19] argues Morris also [116] Ms. CMS's pertinent part WRPA states in as follows: production reported numbers as to her were Collection; § 30-5-305. they unreliable because did not match the royalties. remittance of reported Wyo- production numbers to the ming Oil Gas Conservation Commission (b) payment Whenever made oil or (WOGCC) as reflected on the WOGCC web- gas production owner, to an interest all of difficulty site. One with this assertion is that following information shall be included the WOGCC website includes a disclaimer and labeled on the check or on an stub upon. its numbers should not be relied payment, attachment to the form of unless Additionally, expert CMS's testified certain provided the information is otherwise on a of the WOGCCwebsite numbers were incor- regular monthly basis: produc- rect because CMS revised some (i) figures reported lease, tion to the WOGCC down to property or well name or zero and submitted revised lease, or well property identification to the which identify WOGCC were re- property number used to the lease *7 well; flected on the website. Rather than substan- or tiating Ms. Morris's claim that num- CMS's (ii) year during The month and which unreliable, suggested bers were the evidence payment being sales occurred which is only that the WOGCC numbers Ms. Morris made; . upon

relied not were reliable. (iii) The total number of barrels of oil or sold; gas thousands of cubic feet of argument final con-

[117] Ms. Morris's cerns the wells for which she never received (iv) price per The barrel of oil or the reporting payment. expert or Her testified price per gas; thousand cubic feet of approximatelythirty-three he found wells for (v) severance, The total amount of state payment. which she had never received He taxes; production ad valorem and other royalty was never asked to calculate the (vi) any An of itemized list other deduc- amount due on those He made a wells. adjustments; tions or quick guessed "royalty calculation and (vii) net value of The total sales after probably than interest would be less ' $500." deductions; expert only CMS's testified three such wells (viii) The owner's interest in sales from num- production existed. He testified the lease, property, expressed well as including bers the volumes calculated for decimal; by expert these wells Ms. Morris's were cor- (ix) competent rect. No evidence on the The owner's share of the total value sales however, deductions; price production, prior of this of to ever sales royalties (x) producers must escrow the in of the sales value share The owner's problem-be it to deductions; question while the whom less required in the above in tions answered. mailed information terest owner 80-5-308(c) days overriding royalty 305(b) owner. dollars ed mation ^[120] 'Any person (xi) production by An address where additional certified is liable ($100.00)per receipt pertaining to the owner's is certified as follows: penalty in the amount of one hundred not may who fails to mail, an answer provided If information to the affected provided or other be mail within provision is set request. month that obtained and failing provide to the interest nonworking W.S. 80-5- to is thirty report complete must request- interest royalty, royalty out infor- ques- (80) in- be as wells were jority vast been the matter at knew that interest. have genuine the interest holder that with respect uncontroverted evidence was that on the question. pay or how much to Supreme opinions indicated that much. [CMS] knew whom Similarly, majority paying immediately of to the question regarding instances Court ... respect [Ms. Morris] producing, someone; [I]t is manifest bar, amount interpretations those instances where producing there can be no to the escrowed the funds pay-is to arose, [CMS] question pay-its to majority be [CMS] Act sorted out. at wells, should have paid. make clear In the ma- least some identity of and later was with while the own title question of wells should [CMS] The district court concluded if the identity interest language plain of the WRPA did holder an be issue funds should report when were require CMS to the funds immediately. escrowed being held in escrow. The district court (Emphasis original) The district court con- sense, perfect reasoned: "This makes be- cluded as a matter of law that CMS violated regarding who cause one is uncertain whom by failing the WRPA to submit the hardly pay pay to or how much to can months; reports twenty-nine accordingly, accurately." expected $2,900. imposed penalty The district court continued: Both parties appealed conclusion. Ms. Morris asserts presented testimony expert Each properly district court erred in attempt in an at trial its central reported while CMS contends the attempted contention. [Ms. Morris] fully district court found that it portray herself as innocent interest accurately reported awarding but erred unlawfully holder whose were reporting penalties. Neither of these asser- [CMS], withheld who was also in viola- light tions makes sense of the district reporting requirements. tion of the Act's court's conclusion. The district court did attempted portray itself as a [CMS] properly reported; conclude that CMS rath- diligent willing more than lessee *8 er, the district court concluded that CMS royalties, identity but confused as to the of properly report twenty-nine failed to justified the interest holder and therefore challenges months. Neither the dis- withholding payment. position Neither finding report that trict court's CMS failed to entirely is accurate. during specified period, argues the time testimony Much of the at trial concerned supported by that this was not the blow-by-blow descriptions of the cause and record. problems effect of various Mor- [Ms. ris's] title. the court's eye, however, Ms. Morris challenges the manner testimony superfluous. applied report- much was the district court the of which clear, producers ing penalty. § As the statute makes of Ms. Morris asserts 30- 5-308(b) gas timely pay royalties requires producers oil and to submit a re- must any port failing If for the for each well and to do so are interest holders. reason feasible, making timely payments of is not per subject penalty per to a month well. $100

333 a unambigu- court concluded the statute re- mine that statute is clear and The district port each the wells on quired plied ty port per ry district court concluded had an 803(c) did statute was clear lows: of $100 adding information as 305(b) terest owner in the amount of one hundred interest owner. dollars complete reporting overriding or well construction, failure to do so would provided not occur. Any by sending a words the for each month a interest; person who fails to producer Ms. Morris asserted would Applying the usual rules of statuto- is month ($100.00) per particular month to the interest holder and name," liable to the detailing and the interest legislature meaning and to construe provided in to submit reaching lease in which the owner or other unambiguous; is not well the complete result,.in by affected a court declined to language provided to per provide royalty nonworking a omitted "lease, producer owner complete W.S. month that result, reporting a § § 30-5- royalty, proper- penalty one require as fol- on 30-5- 80-5- com- the re- re- in- all Kennedy tions ute is in the amount of ther property, provide provision that interest owners would receive all of the information identified in through above, determined 154, 10, authorizes the information to be 5-805(b)(viii) requires 305(b) would be liable to the interest owner "the owner's interest lease, property complete report § 80-5-305(b) the statute. ous, provided ¶ intent omitted). Ultimately, we the clear ambiguous the information (xi) 205 P.3d does not Oil v. or well...." The give by on a on a effect to the as set out in or well. For Looking was not Dep't intent regular monthly $100 per is a matter of law to be court. require well basis but instead for each month that anyone of 1003 sales from the provided. at the Revenue, Id. subparagraphs the information to report plain language (Wyo.2008) legislature's whether a stat example, § legislature who failed to paragraph language provided by basis. The to include 2008 WY § 80-5- lease, (cita was fur 30- of (1) > per wise plete monthly instead that month no $100 owner in the amount of says: construe the WRPA as well rejected penalty producer per report month. The district court like- should be Ms. Morris's who provision is liable to the interest fails to submit submitted, requiring compounded $100 means what claim that per one concluding month. report com- each would the omission of for each intend to lature and we will not read words into a sidered to be court's conclusion that the 30-5-308(c), have said well; impose we words Given the had that been its so. As this Court has intentional act agree $100 from a per legislature with the district clear statute is con month language intent, penalty did not legis said, it legislature when the statute has chosen not statutory [T26] 'Our review ¶ 14, Kennedy, to include them. 205 P.3d at provisions governed by following stan statutory 1004. When words are clear and - dards: unambiguous, a impermissible court risks an paramount consideration is to deter views, substitution of its own or those of intent, legislature's mine the which must others, any legislature for the intent of the if initially primarily be ascertained interpret effort is made to or construe stat the words used the statute. We look language utes on basis other than the plain ordinary meaning first to the legislature. invoked Id. The district words to if the determine statute is determined that CMS was *9 ambiguous. A statute is clear and unam in liable to Ms. Morris the amount $100 biguous wording if its that is such reason each month that it failed to submit a com persons agree able are to on its mean able plete report. ing consistency predictability. Conversely, a statute is ambiguous if it is ^[129] Ms. Morris also contends the dis- subject vague found to or uncertain and be concluding trict court erred that the $100 varying interpretations. per reporting penalty to If we deter- month not cumula- was report-was due six months after per month the first calculating the By tive. $100 1, 2000, is, adding penalty July January then the that of 2000. On per well and penalty month, remand, the next month to the district court should consider preceding for each throughout these proper penalty. has asserted Morris this issue and determine the Ms. $2,208,500. owed her that CMS proceedings court that the We conclude district Attorney's 3. Fees and Costs language plain from determined to im- legislature intended statute that that district court concluded [T83] The for each prevailing party until pose penalty a maximum Ms. Morris was the $100 2002, did not oceur. complete reporting month paid the date CMS her November statutory language suggests Nothing in royalties in full. The court reached this con- otherwise. it was "convinced that [Ms. clusion because wells in reporting penalties under the porting penalties awarded failed to March 2002...." speculation. submit she asserted ceived no dence, November no peal that the district court should have submitted continuing "from that dence evidence contends that Ms. ^[131] finding start of expert showing presented reports ^[180] which report and the district court made Contrary to CMS's report. in that witness findings, she CMS asserts which is six months after evidence regard. Morris numerous On the basis of the specific months when it had an Concluding identified interest. point reports "beginning in CMS presented erred in found that were based Given the lack of April, forward interest asserts, in its cross assertions, wells WRPA. CMS Additionally, thirty-three reversed. sion should be that CMS 1999" and awarding in which through but re- the re did not no evi CMS upon evi- ap from March to November 2002 and that deci- found Ms. Morris ber 26 forward. court erred fees and porting penalties, proved proceedings that CMS contends the district court November It $284,896.43. On those issues the district court concluded interests However, Morris] and "there can be no doubt CMS awarded CMS CMS ruling. attorney's her would not have received her had she not commenced Both $6,946.08 in the district court also concluded 25, 2002, and after that date the position were limited prevailing party awarding Ms. Morris claims the district parties appealed fees and costs of costs and $277,450.40 The court awarded Ms. Ms. Morris's through costs for a total of CMS costs and fees. to attorney's calculating from Novem- that she royalties by improperly litigation." attorney's litigation" $7,638.37. royalty fees. im- re- failed to period, $2,900 in reporting the district court ordered CMS to for that penalties. twenty-nine month fees, Wyoming follows the American Rule considering claims for attorney's reports trict court's months supports Section report beginning in CMSfailed submit However, 30-5-301 after the district court's determination July evidence requires payment we are of 2000 first November of 1999. puzzled by the day presented through completemonthly within six March of at month trial dis- JHL, Inc., pursuant ry absence 80-5-308(b), provision to the his (Wyo.2008). (b) The district court for the or her own of an to which each 2008 WY fees is addressed express which In this provides contrary. contractual party case, ¶ 16, as follows: 194 P.3d the award of expressly in fees Stafford responsible county in statuto v. oil, gas following day producing the first of sale. 30-5- which a well or related Section 305(b) jurisdiction requires regular hydrocarbons on a is located has brought pursuant monthly payment proceedings basis onee commences. over all prevailing this article and the first sale was December of 1999. Therefore, brought pursuant this arti- appears payment-and proceedings first

3835 be entitled to recover all court was the prevailing pai'ty cle shall not and was not costs and reasonable fees. entitled to recover her costs. Id. at 561. provision, deciding to this Pursuant [139] One other case merits discussion. fees, motions for the district court Amadio, v. (Wyo. 932 P.2d 1288 Crawford question focused on the of which 1997), the judg defendant made an offer of party "prevailing party." was the trial, prior plaintiff ment to which the did not er party is a prevailing party The determination of wheth is one of law, awarded accept. The case less than the went to trial and the offer of judgment. jury judgment. Proceeding to address the merits jurisdiction and reversed the district court's which we review de novo. Veile v. Bryant, through We concluded the district court did have ruling. P.2d at litigation recover his costs. 2005WY Schaub v. litigation." 2005). motion and exercised Mr. Veile had not Mr. Veile then complaint have "prevailing party" in other cases. claims. Mr. Veile a State Board. The Board dismissed the one who court. 1998)). [137] We Mr.. purposes example, prevailing jurisdiction Veile's The We have defined When Mr. Veile "improves We determined 150, 7, costs, its discretion in Wilson, after Id., 19, we litigation; Mr. that the district court ¶ have claims, awarding sought affirmed on the the district court denied his Veile filed and dismissed the finding 123P.3d his or her sought applied 123 P.3d at 565 and was not entitled to improved we therefore, review P.2d costs of concluded upheld no basis for sought "prevailing party" 562, review 552, position by complaint Schaub, 564-65 definition of his ground the Board's litigation this Court. he was not to recover 561 in district it did properly (quoting petition. position (Wyo. (Wyo. Veile, as judgment prior to trial for more than the judgment made, Morris would have been these that a rules" as favorable required forward. ment of costs therefor required ed Rule 68 costs incurred after does not amount of the "express provision on the basis of The district court tion ed court's division of (1988) awarded the defendant offer was made. offer of CMS made no such offer and so Crawford the district that a costs rules," and Ms. prevailing party apply. is made either in a statute or in judgment referenced This Court and then obtained a than up party W.R.C.P. pay pay governed "except to the time court, judgment the offer of Morris Wyo. the costs incurred after the costs incurred after the W.R.C.P. awarded the who costs between the [for costs] made Reading was made. Had CMS and this when Stat. Ann. 54(d), the offer was made. and the rejected costs from that upheld rejected, was entitled to 1-14-124 she 68, express of the offer and which Rule 68 as an Court, | judgment judgment plaintiff which obtained, plaintiff the district an offer of § provision and Rule 1-14-124 provided conelud- offer of pay provid- parties litiga these point pay- was less Ms. mind, plaintiff arising precedent in an action out of a motor With [¥41] prevailing party vehicle accident was not the turn to we the district court's conclusion that There, purposes awarding costs. the Ms. Morris was the in this case. evidenceshowed CMS knew from plaintiff judgment against obtained default the defendant after he failed to answer the opinions the title it had obtained that Ms. interest, complaint. subsequent overriding royalty Id. at In a had some however, hearing damages, payments place on but did not make to her or injuries plaintiff's period court concluded the were the funds in escrow for month the five July again not caused the accident. Id. Because the from November 2000 and Thus, plaintiff January failed to the accident 29 to injuries, proximate upheld prevailed cause of we on issue that her payments the district court's determination she did failed her escrow required by the WRPA. evidence also improve position through litigation, *11 awarding court erred fees July six months that the district of that showed production, April until the first sale to CMS. after prevailed on that as the WRPA CMS failed to when provide CMS required. issue as well. placed funds reports to Thus, Ms. Morris Ms. Morris escrow, ings that Ms. Morris would not have been as the WRPA CMS failed to make ^[144] required and Despite payments its its findings and further to find that addition, the district court was had she not filed legal action and im action, through not have proved position Morris would her this the convineed Ms. attorney's payments had she not awarded Ms. Morris her district court received persuaded are not this action. We only filed com fees from the time she filed the plaint through in March of 2002 the time that finding regard in that finally payment in full on Novem filed ac- CMS made clearly Ms. Morris this erroneous. 25, 2002, 8, 2002, eight ber months later. From that 2002. On tion on March forward, into escrow ac- deposited funds point court awarded CMS the district attorney's ap The district court later, CMS fees. Eight months CMS made the count. first of tation. motions, responses years, the district lengthy ruling. It then heard three testimony, during tions, parties' account. Over briefs and two respective 'The district payments the course of the which it had the arguments and court was summary judgment to Ms. Morris court considered the supporting inundated opportuni- documen- next issued from the days with mo- two when Ms. Morris was the ty; parently did so because Ms. Morris failed to concluded Ms. Morris was the court's award than it had cannot stand. The district court CMS was not the her claim As a matter of already paid. at trial that attorney's prevailing party; § law, prevailing party, CMS owed prevailing fees to the district correctly CMS, more par- 30- witnesses, ty consider their to observe the 5-308(b) attorney's an award of authorizes credibility weigh testimony. their After therefore, prevailing party; fees to the trial, issued another awarding district court erred in CMS attor- ' ruling along judgment. lengthy ney's fees. paid if assess whether Ms. Morris district court was clearly on the record to appeal. she erroneous, had not filed suggest and we will not disturb it in the best suit, its would assessment there position have been nothing to tarily dismissing some the district court's award suggest CMS was to payment. Although hindsight punish continuing her case, Ms. Morris for not volun- claim to practical pursue once CMS made the claim effect of fees to may imprudent, the claimants in Veile and was the record indicates that Ms. Unlike Schaub, case, in improve position pursued part, Ms. Morris did her Morris to obtain payments necessary through litigation. She obtained information to determine have, proved that whether was owed more than she otherwise would she CMS equally paid. Perhaps violated the and obtained a it would have been CMS WRPA imprudent for her to have her claim judgment requiring pay reporting to dropped pro- penalties. part, responded having For its to without that information. Other cedures are available under the rules to en- by immediately Ms. Morris's action placing ultimately courage parties accept bona fide settle- the funds in escrow and paying Ms. due. As a ment offers. See W.R.C.P. 68. Had CMS trial, judg- pursued it consequence of the CMS has a those remedies would have been if against it it violated the entitled to recover its costs Ms. Morris did ment requiring pay reporting judgment greater than WRPA and not obtain a its offer. penalties. uphold punish pursuing litiga- Morris for We district court's de- To paid, improved accepting termination that Ms. her tion and not the amount CMS litigation having provided position through this and was the without CMS purposes reports allow to determine whether properly paid, being turn Morris's claim she was runs counter fees. We next Ms. the WRPA as well as The district court concluded Ms. purpose of the entire *12 80-5-308(b) § express language of the autho- Morris was the and awarded rizing attorney's prevail- an fee to the attorney's award fees. The district erred awarding attorney's CMS fees. ing party. We reverse court's remand, ris's discretion, order determine, awarding attorney's the the reasonableness in the exercise of its fees court will be request fees to for the of Ms. Mor- CMS. equitable period On firmed in ed for further ^[150] opinion. part, The district proceedings reversed in court's in accordance with part, ruling and remand- is af- 22, through from November 2002 trial. KITE, J., opinion delivers the of the serts the district court erred ^[147] Application In her final of the Escrow Provision issue, Ms. Morris as- when it held opinion. Court; GOLDEN, J., GOLDEN,J., dissenting. files a dissenting © CMS was not violation of the WRPA once respectfully I [T51] dissent from the ma- it escrowedthe funds of 2002. She jority opinion's regarding conclusions the re- ruling claims this failed to take into account porting penalties fees. that there were some wells for which she payment In reports. never received other Reporting Penalties words, contends, Ms. Morris the evidence showed that CMS was continuing to violate I believe the majority opinion miss- primary es the mark Despite on this issue. funds; the WRPA after it escrowed the majority opinion's statement therefore, to the con- the district court's calculation of trary, expressly challenges CMS the factual reporting penalty was incorrect. wells for which she more than it owed. unpaid, together 2002, total sum of ris's trict court the district court also found that Ms. Mor- of Ms. ed to show that ly pay her for three wells in which she had ed the amount of trial interest, expert CMS had was less Morris's the district court's with evidence CMS Ms. Morris is correct found witness testified and that there were $38,657.41 remaining unpaid upon paying than that expert paid approximately CMS did not $500. light as of November presented, ruling paid. of the This Ms. Morris the $500 that the likely at the time he estimat- testimony, testimony specifical- However, remained $8,000 other tend- sup- dis- 25, with bases for the ties were due: penalties award of speculative because port time months when CMS is that CMS Stat. Ann. specific ed all the information Plaintiff did not detail its any appeal or that period provided by specificity month. The (S-08-0104), reporting penalties § against award of 30-5-805. question reported Plaintiff CMS to Plaintiff Morris failed to atfempt allegedly undisputed any reporting penalties. award for and that the check required by improperly reporting penal- throughout failed to re- argues was reporting evidence provid- purely prove Wyo. ported by the evidence. _ In order to determine if Morris presented adequate proof to substantiate an

CONCLUSION penalties award of for lack of for 29 months, [149] The district court's conclusion that it first must be determined when royalty payments Ms. Morris received all reports Wyoming were due. Statute 30-5- 805(b) supported by question. she was due is the evidence. answers this unambiguously The district court 805(b) concluded CMS Section requires report "[wlhenever reports required by payment My failed to submit made." of the review record every payment WRPA. The district court's conclusion that reflects that attached to made by failing CMS violated the either to is a check detail WRPA containing requisite Indeed, place statutory Ms. Morris the due or information. disputes Morris and between supported them escrow is the evidence. began 338 strictly carefully construed and adhered to." information con-

questioning some Through Dept. Family Finding By con- Ser details. no State check tained (Wyo. Jennings, P.2d 1150 evidence, hold that the district vices v. 818 I would trary properly 1991). SR, that CMS failed ruling v. 771 P.2d also KAC See Stovall, (Wyo.1989); v. 648 P.2d and reverse State clearly erroneous Mahaney Hunter (Wyo.1982); same. v. 547-48 Inc., (Wyo. Enterprises, 426 P.2d *13 Attorney's Fees and Costs 1967). Award of Thus, to under statutes are not be effecting any change in the common stood as issue, I Morris was believe On this [T54] clearly beyond that is indicated law which any purpose. party for prevailing necessary by express terms or this is the issue key The to the resolution either language used. Be implication from party." As the ma- "prevailing definition of 30-5-308(b) statute, fee-shifting § a cause is states, this has jority opinion Court narrowly it construed. must be im- party" as one who "prevailing defined litigation. The position through proves her [T57]) provides award The statute for the open concerns the circumstances question attorney's prevailing a fees to of reasonable have party a can be said to under which party any proceeding brought under the position through litigation. improved her Supreme The United States Court WRPA. judgment is where a The situation obvious "prevailing party" discussed the definition happened This is what has been entered. length at in Buckhannon Board & Care judgment and Schaub. both Veile Home, Virginia Dep't Inc. v. West Health it appellants in both cases so adverse to the Resources, 598, 121 & Human 532 U.S. S.Ct. position improved neither their was obvious (2001). discussing 149 L.Ed.2d 855 opposite true. through litigation. The is also statutory language, the Court said: judgment in their party A that is awarded eligible designating parties those for improved clearly position has favor costs, litigation Congress em- an award of through litigation. party," legal a ployed "prevailing the term Dictionary Law 1145 term of art. Black's where The less situation is [T55] obvious (7th ed.1999) "prevailing party" defines party success outside the a has achieved "(a) judgment party in whose favor a "catalyst the so-called courtroom. Under rendered, regardless of the amount of can theory," party also be deemed cases, damages awarded in certain theory pro- party. catalyst prevailing court will award fees to the parties are entitled to reasonable vides that by demonstrating litigation that their prevailing party.-Also fees termed successful party." catalyst obtaining the relief was the sought, in another venue such as albeit at 121 at 1839. In a U.S. S.Ct. voluntary change in through the defendant's Scalia, opinion, specially concurring Justice non-judicial private, via a settle- conduct or Thomas, joined by thorough offered a Justice agreement. ment the district court When as to the definition of the term discussion attorneys' this case awarded Morris limited "prevailing party:" fees because it determined Morris would "prevailing party" is used [When payment from CMS have received absent legislatures in the context of a courts or action, rely- it filing ofthe instant lawsuit, It it is a term of art. has tradi- ing catalyst theory. on the tionally-and my knowledge, prior at expressly enactment of the first of the statutes This Court has never

[T56] here, catalyst invariably-meant party theory. commented on the Now issue us, (or squarely reject I it is before would that that the suit or obtains wins admission) liability. party catalyst theory contrary Not the because runs way his language Wyo. ultimately gets Ann. that his because to the and intent of Stat. 30-5-308(b). adversary § dies before the suit comes The American Rule reflects gets way judgment; party are in not the his the common law rule. "When statutes law, change that a they because cireumstances so derogation of the common must victory legal point "prevailing party" juridical for the other side ered a on action him; victory practical party turns out to be a if the juridical receives some form of relief.4 gets way his and not be- is reached important

judicial imprimatur, the must action is statutory language ry sound for the narrow construction we ing party" statute. jected common law to the extent did tioned parties." dant's Id. at relationship party," the must be a cordingly, Court's an award where there is no S.Ct. concurring). order to be deemed a would reason) it would make no be accorded their propriety of asphalt lawsuit. Words that have cause the other side ceases sance suit but moved to new location to avoid the plaintiff ^[158] ceased call the expense cialized cerned, award of Wyoming Legislature intended, by not, give § at the change voluntary change argument rejecting 616, 1840. pending, operations, I find the Given the definition of plaintiff Id. at meaning outcome if the its offensive conduct. fees should be catalyst theory material during the Court determined would have plant Buckhannon Court held is mooted because the of the any judicial sense, 121 30-5-308(b). in the litigation. The 605, the plant S.Ct. at 1846 has even in the Id. favorable parties. modification in the legal meaning. is insufficient to difference, United States used, characterization is legal relationship prevailing party Buckhannon Court re- one would not 121 S.Ct. at 1840. Ac- prevailing party, prevailing party. period fees under a gone bankrupt did not "prevailed"; though legal In one sense the because awarded the I do not believe conduct, Id. at acquired judicially of time a (for abrogate catalyst context must as far as the go bankrupt the prevail. (Scalia, J., reasonable "prevailing defendant If whatever Supreme a defen- normally "prevail- 604, plaintiff plaintiff if support that, but he "allows absent a nui- a of the some there theo legal sanc- legal And con- spe- the 121 the the I *14 'therefore, will judgment. Dague, marks ry hearing Buckhannon, ences from the nature and at 'ready administrability,'" defendant's quiry lyst party on that issue. ruling in legal proceedings, extensive collateral 120 L.Ed.2d 449 121 pursuant royalties prised royalties, under sideration the claim for catalyst catalyst reporting, Morris. The also hold that and court's award of limited action.. CMS was Morris the claim. Court action, this Court should reverse the district outside the [T61] There is another CMS occurred likely depend failure to rightly S.Ct. at 1843 theory omitted). expressed of two distinct claims: one for the evidence presented, 121 Certainly 505 U.S. For theory. Practically, adoption of the theory favor of CMS on the pursuant Returning, the district court determined the CMS would also be the supporting received the ultimate favorable may turn would proceedings, The S.Ct. change in so, purposes "is unpaid royalties. Morris failed to the underlying provide appropriate 80-5-805(b). the district court's ultimate results majority opinion (1992)), clearly at its concern that during but the some require analysis on a United States litigation. (quoting Burlington then, § she was due. the on reasonable 30-5-308(a); conduct." highly payments attorney's involving the pendency of the as a not a formula for payments (internal 532 to the the action was com- rejection 112 S.Ct. important As for "catalyst unpaid timing .Returning to factbound Since I would necessity U.S. has underlying no prevailing to Morris fees regard the cata quotation 532 U.S. Supreme occurred ... and one fees to judicial at reports upheld, lack of unpaid unpaid of the of the infer CMS, theo then, that, con 610, in v. would 30-5-308(b), hold that, based on the a party can only plain language be consid example of the instant case necessity provides secondary litiga- a good only judg- courl-ap- Juridical relief would include not court a ordered consent decree or proved agreement. settlement things merits, ment on the but also such a majority I would thus dissent from theory. question While catalyst tion under ruling that the opinion's conclusion a Morris was as to whether for determination correct, catalyst theory is I have court on the matter is party under prevailing payment. Engaging The district larger point to make. motivation CMS's findings specific analysis factual into the moti- type no of factual provided above would only CMS the effi- its determination of a can decrease supporting vation if she had not filed paid Morris not have ciency of our courts. My of the record review legal action. instant -I the lead of the Unit- would follow [1 64] to be this determination reveals evidence adopt bright- Supreme Court and ed States extensively worked clearly CMS erroneous. improves her defining person line rule who beginning their dis- with Morris litigation person who position through as a problems her title so help her resolve pute to sought by means some form relief receives legally appropriate pay her it could Only juridical can juridical action. action prob- the initial resolved amount. When she relationship par- between change legal New title lems, paid her due. ties, any legal proper function of action. arose, to once prompting CMS problems worked tinued to work with Morris the new title time CMS again as her interest shortly after the own *15 established cleared to CMS's attorney, problems. Title in Morris suspend payment. Once filed the instant extensively, title paid Morris the escrowed an escrow problems. appeared. to assist action was filed. CMS con- including involving its satisfaction, at which account, funding it Morris in A few to resolve her action, days again CMS eventually resolving before funds, interest failed the WRPA proven provisions. The sulting have damages caused create strict been in her burden of from the amount of from the time owed. I entitled to the the avoidance despite its infractions of WRPA liability. violations penalties understand specific WRPA, however, Proof of payments is months, proof. a civil action under required. by CMS of money plus damages If If she had owed from she would frustration does she 18% re I find no evidence that CMS, at proven payments unaccompanied by time, payment royalties any containing statutory requisite withheld informa prob- than title tion, reason other she would have been entitled to $100 provide It failure to such penalty.5 corollary is that the insti- is her lems. The obvious legal way in no brought tution of the instant action I proof that has about the result Rather, payment. make prompted required. CMS to believe is payment made because title was cleared. only apparent change in actions CMS's by the institution of the

possibly motivated transferring action its with-

instant payments suspension account to

held account. This action does not

an escrow willingness due.

reflect on its imposition penalty. agree majority opinion's $100 method of calculation of the I with the