PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2273

CLIFTON G. VALENTINE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

SUGAR ROCK, INC.; GERALD D. HALL; TERESA D. HALL,

Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,

District Judge. (1:10-cv-00193-IMK)

Argued: December 10, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2015

Before KING, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published 

opinion. Judge King wrote the opinion, in which Judge Gregory 

and Judge Floyd joined.

ARGUED: James Scott Huggins, THEISEN BROCK, LPA, Marietta, Ohio, 

for Appellant. W. Henry Lawrence, IV, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, 

Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Daniel 

Patrick Corcoran, THEISEN BROCK, LPA, Marietta, Ohio, for 

Appellant. Amy Marie Smith, William J. O'Brien, STEPTOE & 

JOHNSON PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Appellees.
2

KING, Circuit Judge:

Clifton G. Valentine filed this diversity action on 

November 8, 2010, in the Northern District of West Virginia, 

alleging that he owns fractional working interests in four 

mining partnerships, which in turn own six oil and gas wells on 

four separate leaseholds located in Ritchie County. Named as 

defendants in Valentine’s lawsuit are Sugar Rock, Inc., and two 

of its officers, Gerald D. Hall and Teresa D. Hall 

(collectively, “Sugar Rock”). Valentine demands an accounting

of the four partnerships and seeks compensatory and punitive 

damages, together with reimbursement of his attorney fees and 

litigation costs. On January 13, 2011, Sugar Rock answered the 

complaint and filed a counterclaim for the cumulative operating 

expenses attributable to Valentine’s asserted working interests 

in the partnerships.

By its Memorandum Opinion and Order of September 18, 2012, 

the district court awarded summary judgment to Sugar Rock and 

dismissed Valentine’s case with prejudice. See Valentine v. 

Sugar Rock, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-00193 (N.D. W. Va. Sept. 18, 

2012), ECF No. 79. The court determined that, under West 

Virginia law, a mining partnership requires each partner to be a 

co-owner of the property that is the subject of the partnership. 

Consequently, the court concluded that Valentine’s assertion of 

interests in the four mining partnerships failed because he 
3

could not produce a writing that evidenced, in conformance with 

the Statute of Frauds, his co-ownership of the subject leases or 

wells.

In tandem with its award of summary judgment to Sugar Rock, 

the court denied Valentine’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his 

complaint without prejudice so that he could join a putative 

class action, styled Washburn v. Sugar Rock, Inc., brought and 

pursued in the Circuit Court of Ritchie County by nine other 

purported owners of working interests in the four mining 

partnerships. Thereafter, during the pendency of this appeal, 

by Order of July 19, 2013, the state circuit court granted the 

Washburn plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. See

Washburn v. Sugar Rock, Inc., No. 11-C-61 (W. Va. Cir. Ct. 

Ritchie Cnty. July 19, 2013). In so ruling, the court declared 

that the plaintiffs were partners in the mining partnerships and 

owned the claimed working interests, notwithstanding that such 

assertions could not be corroborated with a deed, will, or other 

written instrument.

By our Order of Certification to the Supreme Court of 

Appeals of West Virginia, we authorized Valentine to supplement 

the record with the Washburn Order and related materials. See

Valentine v. Sugar Rock, Inc., 745 F.3d 729, 733 (4th Cir. 

2014). We also recognized, inter alia, that the summary 

judgment decisions of the federal district court in this case 
4

and the state circuit court in Washburn “manifest irreconcilable 

outcomes though both courts have sought to apply the same 

precepts of West Virginia law to the identical Ritchie County 

properties.” Id. at 735 n.3. Availing ourselves of the 

privilege afforded by the State of West Virginia through the 

Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, see W. Va. Code 

§§ 51-1A-1 to -13, we requested that the Supreme Court of 

Appeals of West Virginia exercise its discretion to decide the 

following question of state law:

Whether the proponent of his own working interest in a 

mineral lease may prove his entitlement thereto and 

enforce his rights thereunder by demonstrating his 

inclusion within a mining partnership or partnership 

in mining, without resort to proof that the lease 

interest has been conveyed to him by deed or will or 

otherwise in strict conformance with the Statute of 

Frauds.

Valentine, 745 F.3d at 730. Additionally, we acknowledged that 

the state supreme court “may reformulate the question,” id. at 

735, and we affirmed the federal district court’s denial of 

Valentine’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his complaint to 

ensure that we did not ask the state supreme court for an 

advisory opinion, id. at 733 n.2.

In a November 14, 2014 Opinion delivered by Justice M.E. 

Ketchum, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia exercised 

its discretion to accept and rephrase our certified question of 
5

law. See Valentine v. Sugar Rock, Inc., 766 S.E.2d 785 (W. Va. 

2014). Justice Ketchum explained:

The certified question from the federal court 

essentially has two parts. First, if a person 

contends he/she owns an interest in a common-law 

“mining partnership,” then does the Statute of Frauds 

require the person to prove he/she is a partner of the 

mining partnership through a deed, will, or other 

written conveyance? We answer this part of the 

question “yes.” A person can only be a partner in a 

mining partnership if he/she is a co-owner of the 

mineral interest with the other partners. Hence, 

proving a partnership interest in the mining 

partnership requires first proving the person has a 

deed, will, or other written instrument showing 

partial ownership of the mineral interest in the land.

The second part of the question is this: if a 

partnership is a general partnership (as defined in 

and governed by the West Virginia Revised Uniform 

Partnership Act), and the partnership owns leases to 

extract oil and gas from real property, then does the 

Statute of Frauds require a person to produce a 

written instrument to prove he/she is a partner in the 

general partnership? We answer this part of the 

question “no.” Under the Revised Uniform Partnership 

Act, W. Va. Code § 47B-2-3 (1995), general partnership 

property belongs solely to the partnership and not to 

the partners. A person does not need a deed, will or 

other written instrument to establish a partnership 

stake in the general partnership, even if the general 

partnership owns an interest in real property.

Id. at 787-88. Significantly, the Opinion contains a series of 

original syllabus points concerning, on the one hand, common law 

mining partnerships and, on the other hand, general partnerships 

as defined in and governed by the West Virginia Revised Uniform 

Partnership Act. See id. at 787; see also Syl. Pt. 1, State v. 

McKinley, 764 S.E.2d 303, 306 (W. Va. 2014) (“Signed opinions 
6

containing original syllabus points have the highest 

precedential value because the Court uses original syllabus 

points to announce new points of law or to change established 

patterns of practice by the Court.”).

In view of, and having hereby adopted, the November 14, 

2014 Opinion of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia 

reformulating and answering our certified question of law, we 

vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for such 

other and further proceedings as may be appropriate. Although 

we concomitantly affirm the district court’s denial of 

Valentine’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his complaint without 

prejudice, we express no view as to how the court should rule on 

remand if Valentine renews his effort to join the Washburn

action in the Circuit Court of Ritchie County.

AFFIRMED IN PART,

VACATED IN PART, 

AND REMANDED