Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A01-1503-MI-92 | October 9, 2015 Page 1 of 8

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Michael E. DiRienzo, Esq.

Kent A. Brasseale, Esq.

Kahn, Dees, Donovan & Kahn, 

LLP

Evansville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

John E. Rhine

Rhine Ernest LLP

Evansville, Indiana

Meagan R. Brien

Bingham Greenebaum and Doll LLP

Evansville, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Allen Gray Limited Partnership 

IV,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

Bishop Mumford, Christopher 

Mumford, Elizabeth B. 

Mumford, Richardson S. 

Mumford, Thomas F. Mumford, 

Jr., and William M. Mumford,

Appellees-Plaintiffs.

October 9, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

26A01-1503-MI-92

Appeal from the Gibson Circuit 

Court;

The Honorable Jeffrey F. Meade, 

Judge;

26C01-1302-MI-4

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A01-1503-MI-92 | October 9, 2015 Page 2 of 8

[1] Allen Gray Limited Partnership IV (“Allen Gray”) appeals a summary 

judgment for Bishop, Christopher, Elizabeth, Richardson, Thomas, and 

William Mumford, (collectively, “Mumford”), who sold mineral rights to Allen 

Gray but reserved the rights to oil and gas from certain producing wells. As the 

reservations were for a defined area and did not limit Mumford to oil and gas 

produced under existing permits, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Allen Gray’s predecessor bought from Mumford mineral rights under land in 

Gibson and Posey Counties. Mumford reserved oil and gas rights for twenty

years from the date of the conveyance and for “as long thereafter as oil and gas 

is being produced” from the property. (App. at 23.) The deed provided that

after the twenty-year period expired, Mumford’s reservation would continue as 

to each well then producing and as to “the drilling unit upon which each such 

producing well is located as evidenced by the drilling permit” until production 

ceases and the well is plugged. (Id.) (emphasis added). 

[3] Allen Gray argued below that the reference in the reservation to “the drilling 

permit” limited Mumford’s reservation to oil and gas that could be produced 

under the terms of permits that existed at the end of the twenty-year term --

specifically, that Mumford could not deepen existing wells because that would 

require a new permit. The trial court instead determined the reservation 

included the acreage surrounding each well as defined by the permit, and it 

entered summary judgment for Mumford. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A01-1503-MI-92 | October 9, 2015 Page 3 of 8

Discussion and Decision

[4] When reviewing a summary judgment, this Court stands in the shoes of the trial 

court and applies the same standards in deciding whether to affirm or reverse 

the ruling. Ferguson v. O’Bryan, 996 N.E.2d 428, 431 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans.

denied. Thus, on appeal, we must determine whether there is a genuine issue of 

material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law. Id. (citing Ind. Trial Rule 56(C)). This standard requires us to construe 

all factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and all doubts as to the 

existence of an issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. 

Id. 

[5] A ruling on a motion for summary judgment comes before this court clothed 

with a presumption of validity. Id. at 432. Accordingly, the party appealing a 

summary judgment bears the burden of persuading us that the trial court’s 

ruling was improper. Id. Nevertheless, we carefully review a decision on 

summary judgment to ensure that a party was not improperly denied its day in 

court. Id. Where, as here, the trial court makes findings and conclusions in 

support of its entry of summary judgment, we are not bound by such findings 

and conclusions, but they aid our review by providing reasons for the decision. 

Id. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment on any theory or basis found 

in the record. Bicknell Minerals, Inc. v. Tilly, 570 N.E.2d 1307, 1311 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 1991), reh’g denied, trans. denied. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A01-1503-MI-92 | October 9, 2015 Page 4 of 8

[6] The construction of the terms of a written instrument, and the determination 

whether summary judgment is appropriate when material facts are not in 

dispute, are both pure questions of law for a court. Keene v. Elkhart Cnty. Park & 

Recreation Bd., 740 N.E.2d 893, 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), reh’g denied. In an 

action for the construction of a deed conveying mineral rights, the disposition of 

the controversy by summary judgment is appropriate if the deed is not 

susceptible of any interpretation other than that in favor of one of the parties. 

35B C.J.S. Federal Civil Procedure § 1214 (citing Ross Coal Co. v. Cole, 249 F.2d 

600 (4th Cir. 1957)). The deed reservation now before us is not susceptible to 

any interpretation other than that in favor of Mumford. 

Timeliness of Mumford’s Response to Allen Gray’s Motion

[7] Allen Gray first argues the trial court should have stricken Mumford’s response

to Allen Gray’s summary judgment motion and the Allen Gray designation of 

evidence because it was filed too late. Any such error was harmless. 

[8] Allen Gray filed its summary judgment motion and Mumford did not respond 

within thirty days. About a month and a half after Allen Gray’s motion, 

Mumford called the trial court1 to ask about the deadline. The court allowed 

Mumford two more weeks to respond. Allen Gray asked the court to 

reconsider that ruling, and Mumford responded and filed its own summary 

 

1 In one filing, Mumford asserts court personnel called Mumford’s counsel to ask whether counsel intended 

to file a response. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A01-1503-MI-92 | October 9, 2015 Page 5 of 8

judgment motion. Allen Gray moved to strike Mumford’s motion. The court 

heard argument on both parties’ summary judgment motions and after the 

parties submitted proposed orders it granted summary judgment for Mumford. 

[9] Trial Rule 56(C) provides an adverse party to a summary judgment motion 

“shall have thirty (30) days after service of the motion to serve a response and

any opposing affidavits.” The court “may alter any time limit set forth in this 

rule,” but only “upon motion made within the applicable time limit” and “[f]or 

cause found.” T.R. 56(I). Even if the court erred in permitting Mumford to 

respond after the thirty-day time period had expired and declining to strike it on 

Allen Gary’s motion, the error was harmless, as Mumford was not obliged to 

make its own motion for summary judgment.

[10] “When any party has moved for summary judgment, the court may grant 

summary judgment for any other party upon the issues raised by the motion 

although no motion for summary judgment is filed by such party.” T.R. 56(B). 

Summary judgment “shall not be granted as of course because the opposing 

party fails to offer opposing affidavits or evidence, but the court shall make its 

determination from the evidentiary matter designated to the court.” Id. A 

party who moves for summary judgment bears the risk that the court will enter 

summary judgment in favor of the non-moving party, even when the nonmoving party has not filed a cross-motion for summary judgment or otherwise 

responded to the summary judgment motion. Larson v. Karagan, 979 N.E.2d 

655, 659 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A01-1503-MI-92 | October 9, 2015 Page 6 of 8

[11] In their response to Allen Gray’s motion to reconsider the extension of time, 

Mumford told the court it did not plan to introduce any evidence in response to 

Allen Gray’s summary judgment motion. Allen Gray concedes in its brief that 

this case involves the interpretation of the deed language and there are no 

disputed issues of fact. As explained below, summary judgment for Mumford

would have been proper even had it offered no evidence or other response to 

Allen Gray’s motion. Thus, any error in permitting Mumford’s late response 

was harmless. See, e.g., Bonnes v. Feldner, 642 N.E.2d 217, 219 (Ind. 1994) (error 

is harmless if it does not affect the substantial rights of the parties). 

The Deed Reservation

[12] The trial court correctly determined Mumford’s deed reservation included the 

acreage surrounding each well and did not restrict Mumford’s ability to drill 

deeper if it could obtain permits to do so. The reservation language at issue is 

the reference to “the drilling unit upon which each such producing well is located as 

evidenced by the drilling permit” until production ceases and the well is 

plugged. (App. at 23) (emphasis added). 

[13] Drilling permits define, among other things, how deep a well will be and the 

surface area on which the well is located. The Mumford permits, for example, 

include a precise legal description of certain acreage, grant authority to drill a 

well “on the above described premises,” and indicate the “contemplated depth” 

of the well. (E.g., App. at 105.) The area referred to in the permit is the 

“drilling unit” and it is determined by well spacing regulations and the nature of 

the geological formation underneath. The trial court found: 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A01-1503-MI-92 | October 9, 2015 Page 7 of 8

A drilling unit is defined as: “The area prescribed by applicable 

well spacing regulations for the granting of a permit by the 

regulatory agency for the drilling of a well; the area assigned in 

the granting of a well permit.” Williams & Meyers, Oil and Gas 

Law, Vol. 8, Manual of Terms. 

[14] (App. at 9.) In Indiana, the size of a drilling unit is determined by the nature of 

the reservoir: 

(a) This section establishes drilling units.

(b) For sandstone reservoirs, every quarter, quarter, quarter 

section containing ten (10) acres, more or less, as established by 

the official U.S. Public Lands Survey by the rectangular 

surveying system for the state. 

(c) For all other reservoirs, except in established Trenton 

limestone reservoirs, half a quarter, quarter section containing 

twenty (20) acres, more or less, as established by the official U.S. 

Public Lands Survey by the rectangular surveying system for the 

state. 

[15] 312 Ind. Admin. Code 16-5-2.2

[16] Allen Gray argues the deed reservation is limited to the oil and gas that can be

produced from the wells as authorized by the existing permits, as Mumford would 

have to get new permits to deepen the wells at those locations. But the deed

 

2 And see http://www.in.gov/dnr/dnroil/4545.htm#Q16 (last visited September 7, 2015): (“Q: What is a 

drilling unit and what are the unit requirements? A: A drilling unit is the acreage that is assigned to a single 

well for conservation purposes.”). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 26A01-1503-MI-92 | October 9, 2015 Page 8 of 8

does not say that. Instead, it explicitly reserves for Mumford “the drilling unit 

upon which” each producing well is located, and says nothing about the depth 

of the well or any other aspect of the permit other than the “drilling unit.” 

(App. at 23.) Mumford reserved the acreage on which the wells were drilled, 

and that reservation of the drilling unit does not limit Mumford’s ability to 

deepen the wells on those units if it can obtain a permit to do that. 

[17] The trial court correctly determined the reservation applied to the surface area of 

the “drilling unit,” and did not restrict Mumford from making the reserved 

wells deeper. Summary judgment for Mumford therefore was not error, and we 

affirm. 

[18] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Robb, J., concur.