Consolidated Gas Supply Corp. v. Riley

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · Property

PropertyPartitionOil and gasMineral interestsSummary judgmentpartitionpartition in kindpartition by sale

Facts

Consolidated Gas alleged that it owned an undivided eleven-twentieths interest and was the lessee of all oil and gas underlying three tracts of land. It sought partition by sale, alleging the property could not be partitioned in kind and that sale would promote the interests of the parties. The appellants denied those allegations, specifically disputing that partition in kind was infeasible and asserting that their interests would be prejudiced by a sale. No affidavits, stipulations, or discovery materials were filed; the record contained only deeds showing Consolidated Gas's ownership interest, and the court nevertheless granted summary judgment and ordered sale subject to Consolidated Gas's lease.

Issue

Whether Consolidated Gas was entitled to summary judgment ordering partition by sale of the oil and gas interests as a matter of law. More specifically, the question was whether genuine issues of material fact remained concerning the statutory prerequisites for partition by sale and the availability of partition in kind despite the existence of a lease.

Rule

Partition by sale in West Virginia is not available as a matter of right; it is a statutory remedy that requires a showing that the property cannot be conveniently partitioned in kind, that the interests of one or more parties will be promoted by sale, and that the interests of the other parties will not be prejudiced. After the 1939 amendment to W. Va. Code 37-4-1, oil and gas interests have a statutory right to have partition in kind considered, and a subsisting lease on a mineral interest is not an absolute bar to partition.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Parkersburg, West Virginia, Dana Mercer owns a 60% undivided interest in severed natural gas rights beneath two rural tracts, and the remaining interests are held by three siblings. Dana files a partition action seeking a judicial sale, alleging only that a sale would be easier to administer than dividing the mineral estate.

If the siblings contest the request, which is the best statement of Dana's burden to obtain partition by sale?

Explanation. Partition by sale is not automatic. Under the majority opinion, sale is a purely statutory remedy subordinate to partition in kind, and the party seeking sale must show three things: the property cannot be conveniently partitioned in kind, the interests of one or more parties will be promoted by sale, and the interests of the others will not be prejudiced. Majority ownership alone is insufficient, maximizing value alone is not the statutory test, and unanimous consent is not required. (Derived from Consolidated Gas Supply Corp. v. Riley (n.d.).)