Jacklin Romeo, Susan S. Rine, and Debra Snyder Miller v. Antero Resources Corporation
Court
West Virginia Supreme Court
Decided
June 11, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Importance
55%
Case Summary
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2025 Term FILED _____________________ June 11, 2025 released at 3:00 p.m. C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK No. 23-589 SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA _____________________ JACKLIN ROMEO, SUSAN S. RINE, and DEBRA SNYDER MILLER, Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners, v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, Defendant Below, Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Certified Questions from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia The Honorable Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief Judge Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-88-TSK-MJA CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED _________________________________________________________ Rehearing Granted: December 31, 2024 Submitted Upon Rehearing: April 22, 2025 Filed: June 11, 2025 George A. Barton, Esq. W. Henry Lawrence, Esq. Barton and Burrows, LLC Amy M. Smith, Esq. Mission, Kansas Lauren K. Turner, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson PLLC L. Lee Javins II Esq. Bridgeport, West Virginia Taylor M. Norman, Esq. Bailey, Javins & Carter, L.C. Elbert Lin, Esq. Charleston, West Virginia Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Richmond, Virginia Howard M. Persinger, III Daniel T. Donovan, Esq. Persinger & Persinger, L.C. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Charleston, West Virginia Washington, D.C. Counsel for Petitioners Counsel for Respondent CHIEF JUSTICE WOOTON delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE ARMSTEAD, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate in the decision of this case. JUDGE HARDY, sitting by designation. JUSTICE WALKER dissents and reserves the right to file a separate opinion. JUSTICE BUNN dissents and reserves the right to file a separate opinion. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. “‘“A de novo standard is applied by this court in addressing the legal issues presented by a [sic] certified questions from a federal district or appellate court.” Syl. Pt. 1, Light v. Allstate Ins. Co., 203 W.Va. 27, 506 S.E.2d 64 (1998).’ Syllabus Point 2, Aikens v. Debow, 208 W.Va. 486, 541 S.E.2d 576 (2000).” Syl. Pt. 1, Harper v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc., 227 W. Va. 142, 706 S.E.2d 63 (2010). 2. “If an oil and gas lease provides for a royalty based on proceeds received by the lessee, unless the lease provides otherwise, the lessee must bear all costs incurred in exploring for, producing, marketing, and transporting the product to the point of sale.” Syl. Pt. 4, Wellman v. Energy Res., Inc., 210 W. Va. 200, 557 S.E.2d 254 (2001). 3. Except as may be specifically provided by the parties’ agreement, where an oil and gas lease contains an express or implied duty to market, the requirements of Wellman v. Energy Resources, Inc., 210 W. Va. 200, 557 S.E.2d 254 (2001), and Estate of Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources, L.L.C., 219 W. Va. 266, 633 S.E.2d 22 (2006), extend to the point of sale, not just to the point of marketability or to the first available market. 4. Except as may be specifically provided by the parties’ agreement, royalties are payable to the mineral owner/lessor not only from the producer/lessee’s sale of wet gas i and residue gas but also from the lessee’s sale of any byproducts of the wet gas such as natural gas liquids. 5. “‘The general rule as to oil and gas leases is that such contracts will generally be liberally construed in favor of the lessor, and strictly as against the lessee.’ Syllabus Point 1, Martin v. Consolidated Coal & Oil Corp., 101 W.Va. 721, 133 S.E. 626 (1926).” Syl. Pt. 7, Est. of Tawney, 219 W. Va. 266, 633 S.E.2d 22 (2006). 6. “‘The question as to whether a contract is ambiguous is a questio
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 11, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
January 2025 Term FILED
_____________________ June 11, 2025
released at 3:00 p.m.
C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
No. 23-589 SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA
_____________________
JACKLIN ROMEO, SUSAN S. RINE, and DEBRA SNYDER MILLER,
Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners,
v.
ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION,
Defendant Below, Respondent.
___________________________________________________________
Certified Questions from the
United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
The Honorable Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief Judge
Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-88-TSK-MJA
CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED
_________________________________________________________
Rehearing Granted: December 31, 2024
Submitted Upon Rehearing: April 22, 2025
Filed: June 11, 2025
George A. Barton, Esq. W. Henry Lawrence, Esq. Barton and Burrows, LLC Amy M. Smith, Esq. Mission, Kansas Lauren K. Turner, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson PLLC L. Lee Javins II Esq. Bridgeport, West Virginia Taylor M. Norman, Esq. Bailey, Javins & Carter, L.C. Elbert Lin, Esq. Charleston, West Virginia Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Richmond, Virginia Howard M. Persinger, III Daniel T. Donovan, Esq. Persinger & Persinger, L.C. Kirkland & Ellis LLP Charleston, West Virginia Washington, D.C. Counsel for Petitioners Counsel for Respondent
CHIEF JUSTICE WOOTON delivered the Opinion of the Court.
JUSTICE ARMSTEAD, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate in the decision of this case.
JUDGE HARDY, sitting by designation.
JUSTICE WALKER dissents and reserves the right to file a separate opinion.
JUSTICE BUNN dissents and reserves the right to file a separate opinion. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. “‘“A de novo standard is applied by this court in addressing the legal
issues presented by a [sic] certified questions from a federal district or appellate court.”
Syl. Pt. 1, Light v. Allstate Ins. Co., 203 W.Va. 27, 506 S.E.2d 64 (1998).’ Syllabus Point
2, Aikens v. Debow, 208 W.Va. 486, 541 S.E.2d 576 (2000).” Syl. Pt. 1, Harper v. Jackson
Hewitt, Inc., 227 W. Va. 142, 706 S.E.2d 63 (2010).
2. “If an oil and gas lease provides for a royalty based on proceeds
received by the lessee, unless the lease provides otherwise, the lessee must bear all costs
incurred in exploring for, producing, marketing, and transporting the product to the point
of sale.” Syl. Pt. 4, Wellman v. Energy Res., Inc., 210 W. Va. 200, 557 S.E.2d 254 (2001).
3. Except as may be specifically provided by the parties’ agreement,
where an oil and gas lease contains an express or implied duty to market, the requirements
of Wellman v. Energy Resources, Inc., 210 W. Va. 200, 557 S.E.2d 254 (2001), and Estate
of Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources, L.L.C., 219 W. Va. 266, 633 S.E.2d 22 (2006),
extend to the point of sale, not just to the point of marketability or to the first available
market.
4. Except as may be specifically provided by the parties’ agreement, royalties
are payable to the mineral owner/lessor not only from the producer/lessee’s sale of wet gas
i
and residue gas but also from the lessee’s sale of any byproducts of the wet gas such as
natural gas liquids.
5. “‘The general rule as to oil and gas leases is that such contracts will
generally be liberally construed in favor of the lessor, and strictly as against the lessee.’
Syllabus Point 1, Martin v. Consolidated Coal & Oil Corp., 101 W.Va. 721, 133 S.E. 626
(1926).” Syl. Pt. 7, Est. of Tawney, 219 W. Va. 266, 633 S.E.2d 22 (2006).
6. “‘The question as to whether a contract is ambiguous is a questio
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 11, 2025
Jurisdiction
S
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools