Sunbelt Exploration Company v. SEECO, Inc. et al.

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALSEN BANC

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

CA00-185

January 17, 2001

SUNBELT EXPLORATION CO. AN APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY

APPELLANT CHANCERY COURT

NO. E92-66

V.

HONORABLE RICHARD E. GARDNER,

SEECO, INC., et al. CHANCELLOR

APPELLEES

DISMISSED

PER CURIAM

This appeal is brought from a chancellor's order granting partial summary judgment. The order dismissed appellant Sunbelt Exploration Company as a plaintiff and dismissed one count of a multi-count complaint. Because the order appealed from is not a final order, we dismiss.

The controversy in this case surrounds numerous oil and gas leases on lands owned by F.A. and Nellie Parsley and approximately forty-eight other persons (hereafter "the Parsley plaintiffs"). Prior to 1989, the mineral rights on those lands were undisputedly leased to appellee SEECO. However, between 1989 and 1991, the Parsley plaintiffs declared SEECO's rights under the leases forfeited due to SEECO's bad-faith abandonment of the undeveloped parts of the leases. Thereafter, the Parsley plaintiffs executed top leases1 in favor

of appellant Sunbelt Exploration Company. Sunbelt made demand upon SEECO to relinquish its interest in the leaseholds, but SEECO refused and instead began new development of the leasehold interests.

On November 24, 1992, Sunbelt and the Parsley plaintiffs sued SEECO and other defendants in Franklin County Chancery Court. They alleged that SEECO had failed to protect the subject lands from drainage of natural gas, had willfully trespassed on the land after being notified that its leases were forfeited, and had committed fraud by secretly capturing gas for its own benefit. As relief, they sought cancellation of the SEECO leases, an accounting for the wells that had been drained, and monetary damages. On May 7, 1999, SEECO and the other defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment alleging that Sunbelt had no standing to pursue the litigation and that the claim for trespass should be dismissed. Following a hearing, the chancellor granted the motion. It is from that ruling that Sunbelt brings this appeal.

Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that when more than one claim for relief is presented in an action or when multiple parties are involved, an order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not a final, appealable order. See Hambay v. Williams, 335 Ark. 352, 980 S.W.2d 263(1998); South County, Inc. v. First Western Loan Co., 311 Ark. 501, 845 S.W.2d 3 (1993). In particular, a partial summary judgment entered as to fewer than all claims or all parties is not a final order. See Parks v. Hillhaven Nursing Home, 309 Ark. 106, 827 S.W.2d 148 (1992). The order in the case at bar dismissed Sunbelt, but did not adjudicate the rights of the remaining plaintiffs. Further, the order dismissed the trespass claim, but did not adjudicate the other counts pled in the complaint. Therefore, it is not a final, appealable order.

Whether an order is final for purposes of appeal is a jurisdictional issue that we are required to raise even if the parties do not. Hambay v. Williams, supra. A trial court may direct entry of a final judgment as to fewer than all the claims or parties in a lawsuit only upon an express determination, supported by specific factual findings, that there is no just reason for delay. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Such a determination was not made in this case. In the absence of such express determination, the order is not appealable. See Stratton v. Arkansas State Hwy. Comm'n, 323 Ark. 740, 917 S.W.2d 538 (1996).

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to refile at a later time.

Dismissed.

1 A top lease is a lease granted by a landowner during the existence of a recorded mineral lease which is to become effective if and when the existing lease expires or is terminated. See Crystal Oil Co. v. Warmack, 313 Ark. 381, 855 S.W.2d 299 (1993).