Opinion
No. CA12-489
02-13-2013
RICHARD GAWENIS AND SHERRY GAWENIS APPELLANTS v. ALTA RESOURCES, LLC, GRIFFITH LAND SERVICES, INC., PETROHAWK PROPERTIES, LP, and EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION APPELLEES
Tilley & Thomas, by: Albert J. Thomas III, for appellants. Perkins & Trotter, PLLC, by: G. Alan Perkins and R. Scott Morgan; Graddy & Adkisson, LLP, by: William C. Adkisson, for appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE VAN BUREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-06-155]
HONORABLE CHARLES E. CLAWSON, JR., JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
ROBIN F. WYNNE, Judge
This case involves an oil-and-gas lease. In 2005, appellee Alta Resources, LLC, through its broker, appellee Griffith Land Services, Inc., acquired an oil-and-gas lease from appellants Richard and Sherry Gawenis in Sections 19 and 28 in Van Buren County. In 2006, Alta and Griffith filed this action against appellants, alleging that they had discovered that the lease contained an error describing land in Section 28 as Section 26, and that a portion of the land in Section 19 (of which they had since filed a partial release) was subject to a prior oil-and-gas lease. Appellees sought damages for breach of warranty of title and asked the court to reform the lease to correct the reference to Section 28. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to appellees, reforming the lease to refer to Section 28. Appellants filed counterclaims asking the court to declare the lease void for lack of mutuality; asserting that appellees had abandoned it by filing the partial release; and claiming that they had breached it by failing to pay royalties and assigning it without appellants' consent. Appellants filed complaints adding Petrohawk Properties, LP, and Exxon Mobile Corporation as third-party defendants, asserting that Alta had assigned the lease to Petrohawk, and that Petrohawk had assigned the lease to Exxon, without their permission.
Citing the parol-evidence rule, appellees filed a motion in limine, asking the circuit court to not consider evidence concerning the prior lease and certain other matters, which the court granted. After appellees dismissed their breach-of-warranty claim, the case went to trial on appellants' request for a declaratory judgment. At the conclusion of appellants' case, the court granted appellees' motion for directed verdict. Appellants then pursued this appeal, arguing that the circuit court erred in granting appellees' motions in limine and for directed verdict.
We do not reach the merits of appellants' arguments because we must order rebriefing. See Boykin v. Crockett Adjustment Ins., 2012 Ark. App. 685. The abstract of the trial and depositions is in question-and-answer format, which Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B) (2012) expressly forbids. We strongly encourage appellants to review the rules and to ensure that no other deficiencies are present. A model appellant's brief is available for review on the judiciary website. Appellants have fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted brief that complies with the rules. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). Failure to timely correct the deficiencies in the appellants' brief may result in the judgment of the circuit court being affirmed for noncompliance with the rule. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(c)(2). After service of appellants' substituted brief, appellees shall have the opportunity to revise or supplement their brief.
http://courts.arkansas.gov/aoc/forms.cfrn
Rebriefing ordered.
HARRISON and GRUBER, JJ., agree.
Tilley & Thomas, by: Albert J. Thomas III, for appellants.
Perkins & Trotter, PLLC, by: G. Alan Perkins and R. Scott Morgan; Graddy & Adkisson, LLP, by: William C. Adkisson, for appellees.