IN THE SIJPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, a corporation, 

Petitioner 

ELKS NATIONAL FOUNDATION, a legal entity; FLOYD R. YOUNG; CHAD 

RANDALL YOUNG by his guardian SHERRY L. YOUNG; JOSHUA LEE YOUNG, 

by his guardian SHERRY L. YOUNG, MICHAEL EDWIN MAXWELL, by his 

guardian SHIRLEY G. JOHNSON; CORINNA NELL MAXWELL, by her guardian 

SHIRLEY G JOHNSON; LOIS E. LaRUE RIGGINS; SHERRY L. YOUNG; JAMES 

BYRD; JOSEPH EDWIN MAXERLL, JR.; BETTY WILSON; MARY JO BYRD; THOMAS 

A. LARSON and GENE HUNTLEY, 

Respondents 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Petitioner: 

Chris Mangen, Jr. argued, Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, 

Toole & Dietrich; Billings, Montana 

For Respondents: 

Gene Huntley argued, Baker, Montana 

James L. Sandal1 for Amicus Curiae Frank A. Gunnip 

t- and Robert P. Schwinn, Billings, Montana 

e 

3 

-0 0 2 0 

4: w.J 

-l a Submitted: December 13, 1988 

E_ L .3 LLJ Decided: January 25, 1989 @ a --rc 

0 " 2 

- ", -, 

. . 

TCrl dl ," 

*- 

F&e@ o, -+i 

ZE , z 

cT: 4 

-3 ul-- 

ZZ 

03 0 

W -r 

., 2 - ' " Eferk 
Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This is an application for a writ of supervisory control 

under Rule 17, M.R.App.P. It follows a summary judgment by 

the District Court for the Sixteenth Judicial District, 

Fall-on County, which adjudicated the ownership of the working 

interest in an oil and gas lease. We accept supervisory 

control and reverse the judgment of the District Court. 

The issue is whether this Court should issue a writ of 

supervisory control to determine the extent of Continental. 

Oil Company's ownership in the oil and gas lease. 

This case was before the Court previously as Gunnip 17. 

Continental Oil Co. (Mont. 1986), 727 P.2d 1315, 43 St.Rep. 

1605. That opinion sets forth the complicated history of the 

ownership of the working interest in the N4 of the NP3 of 

Section 8, Township 7 North, Range 60 East. In all discussion in this opinion, we are referring to that working interest. In the Gunnip opinion, this Court indicated the 

ownership of the working interest, as established in previous 

judgments relating to the property, as follows: half of the 

NjNW$ in H.W. McDonald, subject to a 1962 ratification agreement with Continental Oil Company (Continental), and the 

other half of the NjNW$ in Frank Gunnip. Gunnip, 727 P.2d at 

1316. The Court remanded the case to District Court for 

joinder of essential parties and "to assess Continental's 

interest considering potential application of adverse possession, waiver and estoppel." Gunnip, 727 P.2d at 1317. 

The plaintiffs in the present case trace their ownership 

in the NqNWt to conveyances from H.W. McDonald subsequent to 

the 1962 ratification agreement. The effect of the 1962 

ratification agreement was argued on remand. The District 

Court ruled that the intent of the parties to the ratification was that Mr. McDonald conveyed to Continental one half 
of his interest in the NiNW$. It ruled that the ownership of 

the N$NW$ is as follows: one half in Frank Gunnip and his 

assigns, one fourth in pl-aintiffs, and one fourth in Continental. Continental filed a notice of appeal to which plaintiffs objected because certification had not been obtained 

from the lower court as required by Rule 54 (b) , M.R.Civ.P. 

We allowed an opportunity for the lower court to certi'y its 

partial summary judgment, hut the court declined to do so. 

Continental now asks this Court to exercise its power of 

supervisory controol. At oral argument, counsel for plaintiffs ioined in the request that this Court determine the 

interest of Continental in the NiNW$. 

Frank Gunnip and his assign Robert Schwinn, who were 

formerly plaintiffs, have obtained separate counsel and have 

been redesignated by the lower court as defendants. They 

have filed a third-party complaint below, asserting their 

right to one half of the working interest in the NiNW$. In 

their brief to this Court, they take no position on the 

application for supervisory control but ask that their 

one half interest in the working interest in the NBNW~ be 

acknowledged. 

Should this Court issue a writ of supervisory control to 

determine the extent of Continental's ownership in the oil 

and gas lease? 

Our caselaw has set forth the standard to be employed in 

determining whether supervisory control under Rule 17, 

M.R.App.P., is warranted. Supervisory control is proper to 

control the course of litigation when the lower court has 

made a mistake of law or willfully disregarded the law so 

that a gross injustice is done and there is no adequate 

remedy by appeal; also, to prevent extended and needless 
litigation. State Highway Com'n. v. District Ct., Thirteenth 

J.D. (1972), 160 Mont. 35, 42-43, 499 P.2d 12281 1232- 

As the opinion in Gunnip stated, the 1962 ratification 

agreement signed by Mr. McDonald provided that: 

. . . the undersigned, H.W. McDonald, does hereby 

ratify, adopt and confirm said assignment, in all 

things with the same force and effect as if the 

undersigned had been named the assignor therein and 

had duly executed and delivered said assignment to 

Continental Oil Company. 

For the same consideration, the undersigned does 

hereby transfer, assign, set over and convey unto 

Continental Oil Company an undivided one-half ($1 

interest in the oil and gas lease above 

described . . . 

Gunnip, 727 P.2d at 1316. The plaintiffs argue here, as they 

did before the District Court, that the ratification is 

ambiguous so that a court must look beyond the four corners 

of the document to interpret it. The Court was not persuaded 

by that argument in Gunnip, nor is it now. We stated: 

There remain unresolved issues of material 

fact regarding the interest of Continental. Although McDonald conveyed an "undivided one-half 

interest" in the Lease under the ratification 

agreement, Continental admits in its brief that it 

did not treat its 50% interest in the N$ of the NWi 

as being derived solely from McDonald until judqment no. 4062 was entered. In 1964 McDonald assigned undivided interests to Huntley, Iverson, and 

Larson. Huntley, Iverson and Larson have claimed 

under this assignment adverse to the interest 

Continental now claims under the ratification 

agreement. A trial must be held to assess Continental's interest considering potential application 

of adverse possession, waiver and estoppel. 

Gunnip, 727 P.2d at 1317. 

In the above quotation, this Court recognized that the 

ratification conveyed an "undivided one-half interest" in the 

lease. Then, as now, we Found no ambiguity in the 
ratification agreement. We remanded so that adverse possession, waiver, and estoppel could be considered as theories 

under which Continental might have subsequently lost or 

forfeited any portion of its one half interest. The District 

Court ignored this Court's opinion and reconsidered the 

effect of the ratification agreement. We therefore grant 

supervisory control. 

We have considered all materials and evidence submitted 

by plaintiffs, including copies of certain oil division 

orders and correspondence between Continental and plaintiffs' 

attorney. We have considered whether those might support a 

theory of adverse possession, waiver, or estoppel against 

Continental. However, we find nothing to indicate that 

Continental has relinquished its claim to any portion of one 

half of the working interest in the NjNWa. The documents 

reflect Continental's mistaken reliance, at that time, on the 

validity of interests claimed by Vernon Eide and J. Von 

DeLinde. This ended after the 1970 judgment voiding the 

conveyance to Mr. Eide and Mr. Von DeLinde and vesting ownership in Gunnip. See Gunnip, 727 P.2d at 1316. Plaintiffs 

contend that the documents demonstrate that Continental 

relied upon a conveyance to it from Mr. Eide and Mr. Von 

DeLinde. We do not accept that contention. The mere statement in the letters and division order of a supposed interest 

held by Eide and Von DeLinde is not enough to establish a 

loss of the interest conveyed to Continental from H.W. 

McDonald. The documents also indicate that Mr. Huntley and 

two other McDonald assigns held interests in the lease. They 

do not name the grantor of any of the interests, however. 

The documents uniformly show Continental' claim to one half 

of the working interest. We conclude that plaintiffs have 

failed to present substantial evidence to support a theory of 

adverse possession, waiver, or estoppel against Continental. 
We therefore reverse the District Court. We hold that 

Continental owns an undivided one half interest in the working interest in the N3NWI. We further hold that Mr. Gunnip 

and his assigns own the remaining half of the working interest in the N4NWJ. We remand to the District Court for entry 

of judgment establishing the ownership of the working interest in the NiNWJ and for such further proceedings as are 

necessary in conformity with this opinion. 

We Concur: 

Chief ~usticed 

/' 

,, Justices 

for Justice X.C. Gulbrandson. 

Retired Chief6~ustice Frank 

I. Haswell sitti-ng for ,Justice 

,John C. Sheehy.