Yesterday, the Wyoming Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lon V. Smith Foundation v. Devon Energy Corp., et al., 2017 WY 121 (Wyo. Oct. 10, 2017), which provided guidance on the application of the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act (“WRPA”). The full case can be found here.

There were 3 issues before the Wyoming Supreme Court, one involving a probate question and two involving the WRPA.

Let’s just focus on the issues concerning the WRPA that the Wyoming Supreme Court gave us guidance on:

What were the WRPA issues?

• Whether ORRI proceeds held in Devon’s own “suspense account” and not in an interest-bearing account in a Wyoming financial institution violated Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 30-5-302; and
• Whether either party is entitled to attorneys’ fees in this case under WRPA.

Wait – let’s back up. What is the WRPA?

The WRPA is found at Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 30-5-301, et seq. and it governs the payment of royalties in Wyoming. It has been around for a pretty long time – the WRPA is by no means a “new” statute, although recent case law over the past 20+ years or so has really refined its terms and application.

I usually don’t cite cases in my blogs, but it is worth noting that the Cabot Oil case really explains the policy behind the WRPA: The WRPA is a remedial statute “enacted in 1982 to stop oil producers from retaining other people’s money for their own use.” Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. v. Followill, 2004 WY 80, ¶ 11, 93 P.3d 238, 242 (Wyo. 2004) (Internal citations omitted). The Wyoming Supreme Court in its opinion yesterday further explained the policy behind the WRPA as follows, “[t]he WRPA was designed to level the playing field between royalty interest owners and oil and gas producers.” Lon V. Smith Foundation v. Devon Energy Corp., et al., 2017 WY 121, ¶ 54 (Wyo. Oct. 10, 2017).

I will be honest, cases involving the WRPA might be my favorite cases to read. Insert joke about me being a big nerd here.

So, back to yesterday’s Wyoming Supreme Court opinion in Lon V. Smith Foundation v. Devon Energy Corp…

Ok I kind of fibbed, we do have to quickly touch base on the probate issue to fully understand what is happening here.  Actually, it really sets the stage for the whole outcome of the case.  Without going into detail on the probate issues, basically, there was a dispute over who was the proper owner of an overriding royalty interest (“ORRI”) after the death of Mr. Smith. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Devon and determined that the Lon V. Smith Foundation (“Appellant” or “Foundation”) was not the proper owner and that the Marguerite Brown Smith Trust (“Trust”) is the proper owner of the ORRI. Id. at ¶¶ 34-39.

Now on to the WRPA issues…

Ok lets get to the good stuff.  WRPA!! Devon admitted that it held funds in an account that did not comply with the requirements of the WRPA when it just held funds in its own “suspense account” – but it argued that the account requirements for holding funds only applies if the party asserting the claim is “legally entitled to the proceeds.” Id. at ¶ 42. The Wyoming Supreme Court concluded, as you might guess, that because the Foundation is not the owner of the ORRI, it is not the “person legally entitled” to the proceeds and it cannot make a claim under WRPA. Id. at ¶ 45.

The next issue was whether the prevailing party language in the WRPA, specifically, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 30-5-303, applies to entitle somebody, either the Foundation or Devon, to an award of fees and costs. Again, the Supremes looked to who is “legally entitled” to receive payments as the preliminary step in the analysis. Id. at ¶ 47. Again, as you might guess, because the Foundation was found to not be the owner of the ORRI, the Court concluded that “the Foundation did not have a statutory right to seek relief under the WRPA.” Id. at ¶ 52. “[N]either the Foundation nor Devon is entitled to attorney fees because neither party was the prevailing party in a proceeding brought pursuant to the WRPA.” Id. at ¶ 52.

As you can see, the Wyoming Supreme Court gave us some guidance on the applicability of the WRPA – Being “legally entitled” to the dolla bills is the key.

[View source.]