Southern Energy Development Company, Inc., and Roy Dobbins v. Larry Crane

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/30/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2100292 Southern Energy Development Company, I n c . , and Roy Dobbins v. Larry Crane Appeal from Jackson C i r c u i t Court (CV-00-356) THOMPSON, Presiding Southern Judge. Energy Development Roy D o b b i n s ("Dobbins") from For C o m p a n y , I n c . ("SEDCO"), a n d ( c o l l e c t i v e l y "the defendants") a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d b y t h e J a c k s o n t h e reasons s e tf o r t h Circuit appeal Court. h e r e i n , we d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l . 2100292 On M a r c h entered into agreement"). its 25, 1994, L a r r y a partnership The p a r t n e r s h i p p u r p o s e was t o e n g a g e coal." The Crane, partnership David agreement Crane, ("the and SEDCO partnership f o r m e d was k n o w n a s "C&S," a n d i n "the general agreement business included the of mining following provision: "The partners a g r e e t h a t L a r r y D. C r a n e a n d D a v i d L. C r a n e s h a l l a c q u i r e real estate i n the B r i d g e p o r t , Stevenson, and F l a t Rock q u a d r a n g l e s and when w a t e r s a m p l e s f r o m s a i d p r o p e r t y a r e deemed acceptable by independent c o n s u l t i n g l a b o r a t o r i e s t h e n L a r r y D. C r a n e a n d D a v i d L. C r a n e s h a l l c o n v e y an u n d i v i d e d o n e - h a l f i n t e r e s t i n s a i d p r o p e r t y t o SEDCO. I n e x c h a n g e t h e r e f o r e , SEDCO w i l l e n t e r i n t o s u b c o n t r a c t s t o mine s a i d c o a l . The p a r t n e r s a g r e e t h a t SEDCO w i l l h a v e t h e e x c l u s i v e r i g h t s t o m i n e a l l s a i d c o a l on s a i d p r o p e r t y i n s a i d q u a d r a n g l e s provided i t i s commercially f e a s i b l e t o mine and market s a i d c o a l . Any and a l l r o y a l t i e s derived f r o m t h e s a l e o f s a i d c o a l s h a l l be d i v i d e d as f o l l o w s : [ o n e - h a l f ] t o L a r r y D. C r a n e a n d D a v i d L. C r a n e a n d [ o n e - h a l f ] t o SEDCO. Any o t h e r profits, t i m b e r p r o c e e d s o r p r o c e e d s o f any n a t u r e derived from s a i d p r o p e r t y s h a l l be d i v i d e d as f o l l o w s : [ o n e - h a l f ] t o L a r r y D. C r a n e a n d D a v i d L. C r a n e a n d [ o n e - h a l f ] t o SEDCO. I f f o r any r e a s o n beyond t h e control of the partners, i n c l u d i n g but not l i m i t e d to regulatory permit problems or commercial u n f e a s i b i l i t y t o mine and market s a i d c o a l t h e n and i n t h a t e v e n t t h i s a g r e e m e n t s h a l l be c a n c e l l e d a n d h e l d f o r naught and a l l r e a l e s t a t e r i g h t s s h a l l r e v e r t t o L a r r y D. C r a n e a n d D a v i d L. C r a n e . " 2 2100292 On action October against 27, 2000, Larry the defendants. Crane ("Crane") Crane 2 alleged a t t e m p t e d t o have c e r t a i n o f h i s r e a l p r o p e r t y property") held, property sought right, alleged from that interest property, Crane to f u l f i l l disputed property suspended by Crane h a d no i n which i t water-sample as r e q u i r e d had f a i l e d agreement. property. against acceptable i n the disputed property offered be the defendants i n the disputed counterclaim but that could to the partnership declaring that i thad obtained the disputed agreement, a t o be he h a d ("the d i s p u t e d the auction the auction pursuant or interest filed before that an company and c l a i m i n g t o have r i g h t s i n a judgment title, SEDCO caused the auction disputed Crane it but that, the defendants contacting the auctioned filed 1 results by t h e p a r t n e r s h i p t o convey t o SEDCO. a one-half SEDCO s t a t e d i t s o b l i g a t i o n t o mine coal upon t h e c o n v e y a n c e o f t h e o n e - h a l f that on t h e interest Because David Crane p l a y e d o n l y a m i n i m a l r o l e i n t h e l i t i g a t i o n , s e e n o t e 3, i n f r a , t h e name " C r a n e , " w h e n u s e d h e r e i n a f t e r i n t h i s o p i n i o n , r e f e r s t o L a r r y Crane. 1 D o b b i n s , one o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s , h a d s e r v e d as a d i r e c t o r o f SEDCO a n d was o n e o f t h e s i g n a t o r i e s t o t h e p a r t n e r s h i p agreement. I n i t s summary-judgment o r d e r , t h e t r i a l court s t a t e d t h a t D o b b i n s was a n o f f i c e r o f SEDCO a t t h e t i m e t h e p a r t n e r s h i p a g r e e m e n t was e x e c u t e d . 2 3 2100292 in the property and as c a l l e d f o ri n the partnership i t sought a judgment r e q u i r i n g s p e c i f i c performance of t h e partnership agreement. I n a second count, Crane had breached t h e p a r t n e r s h i p an agreement, award On Alabama o f $1,000,000 March against 17, 2005, Mineral Development 3 filed a motion Company, t o add I n c . ("NAMDC"), a c t i o n as a t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t , and t h e t r i a l that motion. SEDCO mined coal alleged that was a l a r g e ("the gob p i l e " ) that t h e gob p i l e , of each p a r t y ' s June 9, claimed and, as a r e s u l t , rights 2 0 0 6, had been placed. granted NAMDC, of previously property. an o w n e r s h i p SEDCO interest SEDCO s o u g h t a d e c l a r a t i o n i n t h e gob p i l e . Crane filed a pleading a l l e g e d t h a t h e was t h e o w n e r o f t h e p r o p e r t y pile tothe court deposit on t h e d i s p u t e d i t a n d NAMDC e a c h in On there North against In i t st h i r d - p a r t y complaint alleged that a g r e e m e n t , a n d i t demanded him. SEDCO SEDCO a l l e g e d He asserted a i n which he on w h i c h t h e g o b claim against the SEDCO a d d e d D a v i d C r a n e a s a t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t t o t h e a c t i o n , a n d , i n i t s t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t , i t made t h e same a l l e g a t i o n s a n d d e m a n d e d t h e same r e l i e f a g a i n s t D a v i d C r a n e as i t h a d i n i t s c o u n t e r c l a i m a g a i n s t L a r r y C r a n e . L a t e r , t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o t h e d i s m i s s a l o f David Crane from t h e a c t i o n on t h e b a s i s t h a t D a v i d C r a n e h a d c o n v e y e d a l l o f h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y t o L a r r y Crane. 3 4 2100292 defendants the a n d NAMDC f o r a c c r u e d gob p i l e NAMDC Crane of on h i s filed i n which sought i t sought a judgment gob pile. sought contained sought and the defendants Crane a claim of possession i n t h e gob p i l e o f common-law or the value contained and i t requested Finally, the other Accountability On February judgment. Alabama 1985 Act, minerals o f t h e gob p i l e . i n t h e gob p i l e . requested an award pursuant over It the coal NAMDC a s s e r t e d i n a c l o u d on i t s 3, 2 0 1 0 , C r a n e that filed Dobbins Commission securing a mining permit 5 of attorney's t o t h e Alabama § 12-19-270 e t s e q . , Mining and an award o f c o m p e n s a t o r y a n d p u n i t i v e parties He a s s e r t e d Surface from i t detinue o f t h e c o a l and other that the other p a r t i e s ' a c t i o n s had r e s u l t e d against It and t h e defendants f o r the imposition of a constructive trust damages. t o Crane. caused by t h e i r a s s e r t i o n o f r i g h t s over t h e other minerals title, and i t was t h e o w n e r i t d i d n o t owe r e n t against I t asserted an a w a r d against a declaration that and t h a t unjust enrichment f o r the maintenance of property. a counterclaim t h e gob p i l e also rent fees Litigation A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . a motion had been f o r a summary barred ("the Commission") because of certain by t h e since mining 2100292 violations, licensed those a n d he SEDCO asserted t o mine regulatory that coal. the Commission Crane permitting argued problems, had that, never because of existing before the p a r t i e s had even e x e c u t e d t h e p a r t n e r s h i p a g r e e m e n t , SEDCO was unable agreement to perform result, that rescinded, under the with the partnership partnership title agreement to the disputed was a n d , as a to be remaining property due in Crane. The defendants summary-judgment argued that defendants licenses. motion Crane could filed failed not obtain necessary subcontracts property, licenses with or agreement according specifically the things, evidence necessary they that the could Instead, responsible to submit other Crane's They a l s o argued t h a t whether t h e d e f e n d a n t s the partnership the among to and because into responses permits the agreement i n which, had obtain so. multiple permits was irrelevant d i d not require t h e m t o do to the defendants, contemplated that the SEDCO partnership would enter t h i r d p a r t i e s t o p e r f o r m t h e m i n i n g on a n d i t was f o ro b t a i n i n g those third parties that would be t h e n e c e s s a r y l i c e n s e s and p e r m i t s . 6 2100292 On J u l y 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e t r i a l and entered granted a summary j u d g m e n t i n h i s f a v o r . found that the p a r t n e r s h i p all court the appropriate Crane's motion The t r i a l court a g r e e m e n t r e q u i r e d SEDCO t o secure l i c e n s e s and p e r m i t s to begin mining the c o a l o n t h e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y ; t h a t D o b b i n s , who i t s t a t e d h a d b e e n a n o f f i c e r o f SEDCO a t t h e t i m e t h e p a r t n e r s h i p was e x e c u t e d , had been p r o h i b i t e d from o b t a i n i n g a l i c e n s e o r permit from the Commission Commission had never court concluded secure not perform that their of because coal; the defendants from under order remaining granting the parties pending before hereby dismissed Crane's and/or i n this this with motion causes litigation Court as part prejudice." 7 unable they to could of court was the held directed that "any and of action asserted and w h i c h this Thus, trial and him, t h e t r i a l ordered of the rescinded. motion the defendants The terms the t r i a l summary-judgment between claims that were the a g r e e m e n t was d u e t o b e Crane's to the claims and the Commission, obligations the partnership court's mine a g r e e m e n t , a n d , as a r e s u l t , Although only that to l i c e n s e d SEDCO t o m i n e c o a l . l i c e n s e s and p e r m i t s partnership all agreement by any are currently litigation the t r i a l are court's 2100292 summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f C r a n e a p p e a r e d t o d i s p o s e the claims asserted defendants 2010, reflects NAMDC. a motion t o a l t e r , the t r i a l summary j u d g m e n t t o a p p l y defendants In including The t r a n s c r i p t 4 that a l l the parties, t h i r d - p a r t y defendant filed summary j u d g m e n t . motion by by and a g a i n s t The the asserted and Crane, motion final certified judgment procedural summary parties. judgment court's the July pursuant step that court intended order t o Rule t h e J u l y 28, p e r t a i n i n g t o NAMDC. denying 54(b), have had disposed on t h a t o n l y t o t h e c l a i m s between t h e 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 , summary would those amend, o r v a c a t e of the hearing not to the claims addition, the t r i a l ofa l l of been the defendants' judgment A l a . R. as a C i v . P., a unnecessary a l l the claims i f the of the 5 As p a r t o f t h e i r m o t i o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t s r e q u e s t e d l e a v e o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o amend t h e i r c o u n t e r c l a i m t o a s s e r t a c l a i m o f u n j u s t enrichment against Crane. The t r i a l court denied that request. 4 S p e c i f i c a l l y , thet r i a l court's order denying the motion t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t p r o v i d e s , i n p a r t : " T h e M o t i o n t o A l t e r , Amend o r V a c a t e i s due t o b e , a n d i t i s h e r e b y , DENIED. This d e n i a l of the order granting summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d b y t h i s c o u r t on J u l y 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 , i s h e r e b y made f i n a l a n d a p p e a l a b l e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) o f t h e Alabama Rules o f C i v i l Procedure, i n t h a t t h e c o u r t f i n d s no just reason f o r delay." We i n t e r p r e t t h i s statement as i n t e n d i n g t o c e r t i f y t h e J u l y 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 , summary j u d g m e n t a s a 5 8 2100292 The defendants filed an which t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal 7(6), A l a . Code 1975. whether the t r i a l enter or, a final to this Because the reinvested the t r i a l summary order judgment. against On however, was court, to § 12-2- unclear as t o and with regard Subsequently, to of a l l the p a r t i e s Crane, court with j u r i s d i c t i o n claims this court t o e n t e r an to the July the t r i a l court order 28, 2010, entered an t h a t i t s summary j u d g m e n t a p p l i e d o n l y t o t h e and Crane. NAMDC r e m a i n p e n d i n g appeal, we court pursuant the record defendants i t sintention clarifying supreme judgment as t o o n l y t h o s e c l a i m s between the defendants and our j u d g m e n t as t o a l l t h e c l a i m s between clarifying to c o u r t , b y i t s summary j u d g m e n t , i n t e n d e d instead, to enter a f i n a l pending appeal the cannot constrained to jurisdiction because i n the t r i a l defendants reach dismiss those the i t was Thus, t h e c l a i m s raise appeal taken court. several arguments. arguments; Instead, for lack from by of a nonfinal we are appellate judgment. f i n a l judgment pursuant t o Rule 54(b), A l a . R. C i v . P., b e c a u s e t h e summary j u d g m e n t i s t h e o n l y o r d e r o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t a c t u a l l y d i s p o s e s o f any o f t h e p a r t i e s ' c l a i m s and i s t h e r e f o r e t h e o n l y o r d e r c a p a b l e o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n as a f i n a l judgment. Furthermore, the order denying the motion t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t d i r e c t l y r e f e r e n c e s t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n p u r p o r t i n g t o e n t e r a c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f finality. 9 2100292 Although regard court In to this court of the parties court's i s required BB&S G e n e r a l Inc., Civ. none jurisdiction to consider Contractors, over an i s s u e with the appeal, this i t sjurisdiction ex mero I n c . v. Thornton & Associates, 979 So. 2 d 1 2 1 , 123-25 provided has r a i s e d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007), a detailed discussion P., a n d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s motu. of Rule 54(b), A l a . R. of i t sa p p l i c a t i o n i n various circumstances: " R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a l l o w s a t r i a l c o u r t , in appropriate instances, to 'direct the entry of a f i n a l j u d g m e n t as t o one o r more b u t f e w e r t h a n a l l of the claims or parties.' With regard to subsection ( b ) , t h e Committee Comments on 1973 A d o p t i o n t o R u l e 54 p r o v i d e , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "'This subdivision regulates the r e l a t i o n of that j o i n d e r t o the usual requirement, i n Alabama as e l s e w h e r e , t h a t a p p e a l must be o n l y f r o m a f i n a l j u d g m e n t , s a v e i n unusual circumstances. See Code o f A l a . , T i t . 7, § 7 5 4 . I n g e n e r a l t h e r u l e a d o p t s e q u i t y p r a c t i c e o f a " s p l i t j u d g m e n t . " See E q u i t y R u l e 69. The r u l e p r o v i d e s t h a t , i n the absence of a f f i r m a t i v e a c t i o n by t h e judge, no d e c i s i o n i s f i n a l u n t i l the e n t i r e case has been a d j u d i c a t e d . The one exception i s t h a t where t h e court has c o m p l e t e l y d i s p o s e d o f one o f a number o f c l a i m s , o r one o f m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s , a n d h a s made a n e x p r e s s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e r e i s n o j u s t r e a s o n f o r d e l a y , t h e c o u r t may d i r e c t t h e e n t r y o f j u d g m e n t on t h a t c l a i m or as t o t h a t p a r t y . The j u d g m e n t s o 10 this 2100292 entered i s a final judgment r e s p e c t s , a n d may b e a p p e a l e d i n ' a l l " I n some i n s t a n c e s , a R u l e 5 4 ( b ) c e r t i f i c a t i o n may n o t b e a p p r o p r i a t e . When p e n d i n g c l a i m s ' " a r e so c l o s e l y i n t e r t w i n e d t h a t s e p a r a t e a d j u d i c a t i o n w o u l d pose an u n r e a s o n a b l e r i s k of inconsistent r e s u l t s , " ' o u r c o u r t s may d e t e r m i n e a R u l e 5 4 ( b ) c e r t i f i c a t i o n t o be i n v a l i d . Gray v. C e n t r a l Bank o f T u s c a l o o s a , N.A., 5 1 9 S o . 2 d 4 7 7 , 4 7 9 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ( q u o t i n g B r a n c h v . S o u t h T r u s t B a n k o f D o t h a n , N.A., 514 So. 2 d 1 3 7 3 , 1374 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . See a l s o Clarke-Mobile Counties Gas D i s t . v . P r i o r Energy C o r p . , 834 S o . 2 d 88 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ( s e t t i n g a s i d e a Rule 54(b) c e r t i f i c a t i o n and d i s m i s s i n g t h e appeal as b e i n g f r o m a n o n f i n a l j u d g m e n t when t h e t r i a l court considered breach-of-contract claims without considering the counterclaim alleging fraud). The m e r e f a c t t h a t c l a i m s 'may h a v e a r i s e n o u t o f t h e same s e t o f f a c t s d o e s n o t p r e v e n t t h e m f r o m b e i n g multiple claims.' Pate v. M e r c h a n t s N a t ' l Bank o f Mobile, 409 So. 2 d 797, 799 ( A l a . 1982) ( c i t i n g C a t e s v . B u s h , 293 A l a . 5 3 5 , 307 S o . 2 d 6 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ) . BB&S G e n e r a l In Contractors, the present remain pending. those claims property. for a seek pile, case, rests i s the proper declaratory against a determination with the claims by and against NAMDC One o f t h e i s s u e s o n w h i c h t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f F o r example, counterclaim I n c . , 979 So. 2 d a t 123-24. SEDCO's ownership SEDCO's p e n d i n g judgment, SEDCO as well claim as against NAMDC's NAMDC pending f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment, as t o t h e proper claim of the disputed ownership t o t h e gob p i l e 11 both o f t h e gob premised on i t s 2100292 contention that by of virtue disputed i t owns a n the partnership property Crane and the interest i s also at i n the disputed agreement. Ownership the heart of defendants t h a t the trial court summary judgment. between the Indeed, adjudicated the of between resolved in i t s the intertwining i l l u s t r a t e d by the f o l l o w i n g exchange between the a t t o r n e y for motion alter, to "THE trial judge amend, o r COURT: at the hearing vacate, A l l right. the claims the is the and the of claims NAMDC a n d claims depth property the pending on the summary Anything defendants' judgment: further? "MR. S T E A K L E Y [ ( c o u n s e l f o r NAMDC)] : N o t t h a t i s p e n d i n g b e f o r e the Court, your Honor, but j u s t t o a l e r t t h e C o u r t , i n l i g h t of t h e C o u r t ' s r u l i n g and d e p e n d i n g on how t h e C o u r t r u l e s on t h e m o t i o n f o r reconsideration, there is a cross-claim pending a g a i n s t my client, [NAMDC], t h a t i s b a s e d solely upon an interest they are claiming through a contract. So we w i l l b e c o m i n g b a c k t o t h e C o u r t u l t i m a t e l y , d e p e n d i n g on t h e C o u r t ' s ruling here, a s k i n g f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on t h a t c r o s s - c l a i m . "THE COURT: T h a t ' s w h a t I was g o i n g t o a s k , i s what i s your u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h a t p a r t of the l i t i g a t i o n at t h i s point? Y o u t e l l me y o u ' l l file something. "MR. STEAKLEY: Yes, s i r . In f a c t , the only p o s s i b l e r i g h t t h a t SEDCO c o u l d c l a i m i s b a s e d on that contract. T h e y c l a i m an i n t e r e s t i n c e r t a i n o f t h e m i n e r a l s t h a t a r e on t h a t p r o p e r t y a n d their i n t e r e s t i s claimed through the c o n t r a c t . A n d I -¬ o b v i o u s l y i f summary j u d g m e n t i s g r a n t e d t h e r e , i t 12 2100292 w o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e i t as w e l l . "THE COURT: another day. "MR. (Emphasis closely that the claims final t o our aspect We'll deal with of t h a t on s i r . " between Crane adjudication results, i tcertified supra. Yes, intertwined with inconsistent pursuant A l l right. STEAKLEY: separate when respect added.) Because so with t o Rule Without judgment jurisdiction, Pittman, poses t h e summary over an by and a g a i n s t unreasonable that the t r i a l judgment court's which this and, as a r e s u l t , See i d . court erred Contractors, Inc., can e x e r c i s e the appeal of judgment c e r t i f i c a t i o n , there court NAMDC risk as a f i n a l S e e BB&S G e n e r a l the t r i a l hereby dismissed. APPEAL the claims we c o n c l u d e 54(b). and t h e defendants a r e i s no appellate i s due t o be a n d i s 6 DISMISSED. Bryan, Thomas, a n d M o o r e , J J . , concur. We n o t e t h a t , a s p a r t o f t h e i r a p p e a l , t h e d e f e n d a n t s contend that the t r i a l court erred i n denying t h e i r motion t o amend t h e i r c o m p l a i n t . B e c a u s e t h e r e i s no f i n a l j u d g m e n t o v e r w h i c h t h i s c o u r t c a n e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n , we c a n n o t consider that aspect of the defendants' appeal. 6 13

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.