首页> 外文期刊>Oil and Gas Reporter >Court Jurisdiction, Procedure and Review: Certified Question Oil and Gas Leases: Assignment; Statute of Frauds Mining Partnership: Elements
【24h】

Court Jurisdiction, Procedure and Review: Certified Question Oil and Gas Leases: Assignment; Statute of Frauds Mining Partnership: Elements

机译:法院管辖权,程序和审查:认证问题石油和天然气租赁:任务; 欺诈挖掘伙伴关系的法规:元素

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Valentine files this action asserting that he is the owner of several fractional interests in oil and gas leases that constitute mining partnerships with Sugar Rock, which is the operator under the leases. Valentine asserts that his ownership in the leases was conveyed by Deem to him in the 1950s and that he received payments by virtue of production through the 1990s. After Deem later conveyed its interest to Sugar Rock, Valentine stopped receiving payments and did not pay Sugar Rock when billed for leasehold expenses. Sugar Rock sued Valentine for non-payment but the matter was dropped for lack of prosecution. At the District Court, Sugar Rock moved for summary judgment based on the fact that Valentine was unable, after the discovery process was completed, to produce a written instrument evidencing the conveyance of the leasehold interests from Deem to Valentine. Valentine responded by alleging that his interests arose out of mining partnerships, which West Virginia recognizes may come into existence without a written instrument. The three elements of a mining partnership in West Virginia are: 1. co-ownership of lands or leases, 2. joint operation, and 3. sharing of profits and losses. The District Court finds that Valentine's inability to produce a written deed or assignment means that he can't prove co-ownership of the leases and thus grants Sugar Rock's motion for summary judgment. A state court action (Washburn) filed by persons in similar circumstances to Valentine reached a different conclusion based on some additional evidence, including the written Schedule K-1s that Sugar Rock had provided to them and Valentine over the years. Upon further review by the District Court, including an analysis of potentially conflicting West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals opinions on the subject, it re-affirms the issuance of the summary judgment order. Held: certified question issued to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.
机译:情人节档案此行动断言他是石油和天然气租赁的几个分数兴趣的所有者,该租赁构成与糖岩的采矿合作伙伴关系,这是租赁下的运营商。情人节断言,他在20世纪50年代认为他对他的所有权传达给他,并通过20世纪90年代通过生产收到付款。在Deem后来将其兴趣传达给Sugar Rock后,情人节停止收到付款,并在收取租赁费用时没有支付糖岩。糖岩被起诉的华伦泰为不付款,但缺乏起诉掉了这件事。在地区法院,在发现过程完成后,糖摇滚旨在基于情人节的事实,以制定一份书面仪器证明了向情人传递租赁租赁权益的发挥作用。情人节因指示他的利益出现在挖掘伙伴关系中,西弗吉尼亚州的融合伙伴关系可能会在没有书面乐器的情况下进入存在。西弗吉尼亚州采矿伙伴关系的三个要素是:1。土地或租赁共同拥有,2.联合行动,3.分享利润和损失。地区法院发现情人节无法制作书面契约或任务意味着他无法证明租赁的共同所有权,从而授予糖石的总结判决的动议。在类似情况下向情人节提交的国家法庭行动(Washburn)根据一些额外证据达成了不同的结论,包括糖岩多年来向他们和情人节提供的书面安排K-1。在地区法院进一步审查后,包括对潜在冲突的西弗吉尼亚州关于对该主题的意见的潜在矛盾的西弗吉尼亚州的审议分析,它重新肯定了摘要判决令的发布。举行:向西弗吉尼亚最高法院发出的认证问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号