Kenneth E. Cooper and Shirley Cooper v. Edward Messenger and Cindy Messenger

No. 14-0341 (Gilmer County 13-C-3) · Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · February 16, 2016 · No. No. 14-0341

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed a circuit court order granting Edward and Cindy Messenger exclusive use and enjoyment of free gas provided under a 1973 oil and gas lease. The court held that the parties’ land contract was clear and unambiguous, did not reserve the free-gas right to Kenneth and Shirley Cooper, and therefore did not permit consideration of extrinsic evidence.

Court
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
Writing for the Court
Per curiam; Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum; Justice Brent D. Benjamin; Justice Margaret L. Workman; Justice Allen H. Loughry II; Justice Robin Jean Davis
Jurisdiction
West Virginia
Decision date
February 16, 2016
Docket number
No. 14-0341
Procedural posture
Petitioners appealed the Circuit Court of Gilmer County's final order awarding respondents the exclusive use and enjoyment of free gas under a 1973 oil and gas lease.
Standard of review
De novo review applies to interpretation of a deed or written contract when interpretation is not dependent on extrinsic evidence.
Precedential value
Published memorandum decision; precedential status is identified in the supplied metadata as published.
Parties
Kenneth E. Cooper, Shirley Cooper v. Edward Messenger, Cindy Messenger
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

contract interpretationoil and gasmineralsstandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

contract lawoil and gasreal propertyappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the land contract was complete and unambiguous regarding the right to use free gas supplied under the 1973 oil and gas lease.
  2. Whether the circuit court was required to consider extrinsic evidence to interpret the land contract.
  3. Whether the evidence supported the circuit court's determination that respondents were entitled to the exclusive use and enjoyment of the free gas.

Holdings

  1. The land contract was clear and unambiguous and transferred to respondents the right to access and use the free gas serving the original Stoneking dwelling because petitioners did not reserve that right in the contract.
  2. Extrinsic evidence was not admissible to explain or alter the terms of the land contract because the contract was unambiguous.
  3. The evidence supported the circuit court's ruling that respondents were entitled to the exclusive use and enjoyment of the free gas.

Key quotations

An examination of the land contract in question supports the circuit court’s finding that its language is clear and unambiguous with respect to the rights of the parties under the contract. (at 2)
Extrinsic evidence will not be admitted to explain or alter the terms of a written contract which is clear and unambiguous. (at 3)
If a writing is not ambiguous, it must speak for itself by its words, without aid of any oral evidence[.] (at 3)

Factual background

A 1973 oil and gas lease provided unlimited free gas for one dwelling, and the original Stoneking dwelling continuously received the gas. Petitioners later acquired approximately 130 acres and entered into a 2005 land contract conveying to respondents the original Stoneking farmhouse and surrounding acre; the contract was silent about free gas but required respondents to pay utilities, insurance, and taxes. Respondents lived in the original dwelling and used the free gas, while petitioners argued that they had retained the right to use it for their separate home. The circuit court found that the contract transferred the right to access and use the free gas to respondents.

Procedural history

Respondents purchased a dwelling and approximately one acre from petitioners through a land contract. A dispute arose over whether respondents or petitioners were entitled to use free gas supplied under a 1973 oil and gas lease. After a bench trial, the circuit court concluded that the land contract was complete and unambiguous, did not reserve the free-gas right to petitioners, and awarded respondents its exclusive use. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…