Armstrong, et al. v. Berco Resources, LLC, et al., No. 12-3062 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment quieting title to an interest in the Bakken formation that Phillip Armstrong purchased from Berco. Armstrong also filed suit against Encore for breaching a Letter Offer and for trespassing on, and converting the oil and gas attributable to, Armstrong's interest. Berco counterclaimed. The court affirmed the dismissal of Armstrong's quiet-title claim, based on the district court's conclusion that the Purchase Agreement and Assignment, taken together, conveyed to Armstrong a wellbore-only assignment; Armstrong's trespass claim was properly dismissed because Armstrong did not assert that Encore interfered with his use of the two wellbores; Armstrong's conversion claim was properly dismissed because Armstrong has an interest in only the Thompson and Yttredahl wellbores, the equipment associated with those wellbores, and the production through those two wellbores; the breach of contract claim was properly dismissed because Armstrong had no leasehold interest to transfer and thus could not comply with the Letter Offer; and the district court correctly ruled that Armstrong's unilateral alteration of Exhibit A before recording it rendered the recorded Assignment null and void. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Civil case - contracts. The district court did not err in concluding that the purchase agreement and assignment, taken together, transferred a wellbore-only interest to plaintiff rather than a leasehold interest in the property on which the two wells were located; while the agreements were ambiguous, the testimony the court heard regarding the parties' intent, as well as custom and useage in the oil and gas industry, supported the district court's conclusion; as plaintiff had only an interest in the wellbores and did not allege that defendant interfered with his use of them, the court did not err in dismissing his trespass claim; since plaintiff did not have a leasehold interest, he failed to satisfy a condition precedent in an agreement with defendant Encore, and the court did not err in finding for Encore on plaintiff's claim for breach of contract; it is undisputed that plaintiff altered the assignment he recorded without obtaining the grantor's signature and acknowledgment, and the deed was null and void under North Dakota law.
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.