Norbeck v. Crawford

CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 25, 1992
Docket92-113
StatusPublished

This text of Norbeck v. Crawford (Norbeck v. Crawford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Norbeck v. Crawford, (Mo. 1992).

Opinion

NO. 92-113

IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1992 JANE S. NORBECK, Trustee of the JANE NORBECKTrust dated November 20, 1963, Plaintiff, Respondent and Cross-Appellant, -vs- MRS. M. H. CRAWFORD and MR. M. H. CRAWFORD,her husband, if any, and other heirs, devisees, legatees, creditors, administrators, executors, and assigns of any of said defendants, if they be deceased: and any and all persons known or unknown, claiming or who might claim any right, title, estate or interest in or lien or encumbrance upon the real property situated in the County of Fallon, State of Montana, described as 25% of the net proceeds derived from the production as reserved by George Norbeck in operating agreement with Fidelity Gas Company included in and a part of U.S. Oil and Gas Lease prospecting permit, Billings Serial #021056 as to NE1/4, Section 12, Twp. 8N, Rge 59E of M.P.M., Fallon County, Montana or any thereof adverse to Plaintiff's title whether such claim be present or contingent including any claim or possible claim of dower, inchoate or accrued, Defendants, Appellants, and Cross-Respondents.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Fallon, The Honorable Joe L. Hegel, Judge presiding. COUNSELOF RECORD: For Appellant: Charles J. Peterson, Mackoff, Kellogg, Kirby & Kloster, Beach, North Dakota For Respondent: Chris Mangen, Jr., Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole & Dietrich, Billings, Montana _ 4; ;

Submitted on Briefs: July 23, 1992 Justice R. C. McDonough delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Mrs. M.H. Crawford, et al., appeals from a judgment of the

Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Fallon CoUnty. We affirm.

The sole issue on appeal is:

Whether the District Court erred in granting the disputed 25

percent interest in a federal oil and gas lease to Jane S. Norbeck,

Trustee of the Jane Norbeck Trust, subject however to 39/40ths of

such 25 percent interest being vested in Mrs. M.H. Crawford, et al., upon approval of the Department of the Interior.

In 1934, George Norbeck (Norbeck) obtained federal lease,

021056 (b) , from the United States Department of Interior. The

lease contained a fixed twenty year term and granted the lessee right of renewal upon expiration. The lease also contained a

provision barring assignment without consent of the Secretary of

the Interior through the land office.

Norbeck entered into an operating agreement with Fidelity Gas

Company. He retained record title ownership of the lease, as

lessee, with 25 percent of the net proceeds of production. Norbeck

appointed Fidelity Gas Company as his attorney-in-fact to obtain

renewal leases on his behalf. Subsequently, Fidelity Gas Company

assigned the operating rights in the deep formations to Shell Oil

Company.

In 1935, Norbeck made an assignment of the 25 percent interest

to Mrs. M.H. Crawford. This assignment was rejected by the United

States Land Office because Mrs. Crawford did not pay the required

2 lease bond, or establish the necessary qualifications to own an

interest in the lease. Mrs. Crawford did not pay any delay

rentals. After the assignment, Mrs. Crawford had the assignment

filed with the county clerk and recorder. Thereafter, Mrs.

Crawford took no action in regard to the lease.

Fidelity Gas applied for a renewal lease in 1954 on behalf of

Mrs. Crawford. The land office rejected the renewal because

Fidelity Gas did not have authority to act on behalf of Mrs. Crawford, and the land office did not recognize Mrs. Crawford as a

lessee. Fidelity then applied for a renewal lease as attorney-in-

fact for Norbeck. The land office accepted this application and

issued a renewal to Norbeck. In 1964 Fidelity applied for the

second renewal as attorney-in-fact for Norbeck, and the renewal was

issued. The second renewal lease was put on producing status in

1968. Since then, some $420,000 in production payments have been

allocated to the 25 percent interest.

On October 28, 1968, the land office notified "heirs of George

Norbeck" that under federal regulations they had to establish their

succession to his interest in the lease. On August 18, 1987, the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the successor to the land office,

notified the Norbeck heirs that it recognized their interest in the

lease.

The Norbeck heirs transferred all of their interest in the

lease to the Jane Norbeck Trust, Julius A. Bernard, Trustee.

Subsequently, Jane S. Norbeck took over as trustee (Norbeck Trustee). On September 29, 1988, Shell Oil notified the trustee that Shell had completed its review of the claim to the interest

but would not distribute the proceeds without a quiet title action being completed.

On October 22, 1990, the Norbeck Trustee began a quiet title

action before the District Court. Efforts were made to locate Mrs.

Crawford, but no response was forthcoming. A default was taken

against Mrs. M. H. Crawford. The District Court quieted title to

Jane S. Norbeck, Trustee, on December 7, 1990. Subsequently, the heirs of Mrs. M.H. Crawford (the Crawford

heirs) surfaced and filed a motion for relief from judgment. The

District Court vacated the default and judgment on June 4, 1991.

The Crawford heirs sought to quiet their title to 39/40ths of the disputed interest. Jane S. Norbeck, Trustee, filed a motion for summary judgment. In response the Crawford heirs moved for partial

summary judgment.

The District Court, on January 17, 1992, ruled that Jane S.

Norbeck, Trustee, owned all the allocated production proceeds.

However, the District Court ruled the Crawford heirs could apply to

the BLM for approval of the previously rejected assignment. Should

the assignment be approved, the Crawford heirs would own 39/40ths

of the disputed interest and the proceeds of production would be

allocated to them after the first day of the month following

application for approval. This appeal followed.

4 Our scope of reviewing motions for summary judgment is the same as the trial court and is a question of law. Summary judgment

is granted only if no genuine issue of material fact exists.

The District Court found that federal oil and gas leases are

governed by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, P.L. No. 146, 41 Stat.

437 (1920), as codified in 30 U.S.C. Sec. 5, 181 et seq. The

original statute provided: "[N]o lease issued under the authority

of this Act shall be assigned or sublet, except with the consent of

the Secretary of the Interior."

30 U.S.C. Sec. 187a (1990) provides: [A]ny oil or gas lease issued under the authority of this Act may be assigned . . ., subject to final approval by the Secretary . . to any person or persons qualified to own a lease unddr this Act, and any assignment or sublease shall take effect as of the first day of the lease month following the date of filing in the proper land office of three original executed counterparts thereof, together with any required bond and proof of qualification under the Act of the assignee or subleasee to take or hold such lease or interest therein. . . .

The District Court in light of 30 U.S.C. 187a, ruled the Crawford

heirs would own 39/40ths of the disputed interest upon the approval

of the assignment by the BLM.

The case of Oasis Oil Co. v. Bell Oil & Gas Co. (W-D. Okla.

1952), 106 F.Supp 954, followed 30 U.S.C.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Norbeck v. Crawford, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norbeck-v-crawford-mont-1992.