Opinion ID: 6215668
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Letter Agreement and Unjust Enrichment

Text: Peter D. argues that it is entitled to damages based on Wold’s refusal to pay jointinterest billings to Black Diamond. It appears to style this claim as one for unjust enrichment. But Wyoming law rejects claims for unjust enrichment when a written agreement governs the parties’ relationship. See Schlinger v. McGhee, 268 P.3d 264, 272 12 Appellate Case: 20-8050 Document: 010110641796 Date Filed: 02/07/2022 Page: 13 (Wyo. 2012) (“Unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy. As such, it cannot exist where there is an express contract governing the relationship between the parties.”). Because the Letter Agreement governs the parties’ obligations toward the Contract Area, any unjust enrichment claim must fail. Even construing Peter D.’s argument as one for breach-of-contract, we still would conclude that it fails. This is because Peter D. never specifies exactly which joint interest billings Wold refused to pay. To the best of our understanding, Peter D.’s claim relates to joint-interest billings that Black Diamond sent to Wold on July 1, 2008, August 1, 2008, and September 23, 2008. But we find that these claims fail based on the terms of the Letter Agreement. Wold and Black Diamond executed the Letter Agreement to resolve these very disputes. See R. Vol. 4 at 901 (“Our companies have been in disagreement as to how expenses are to be allocated and paid for both the Farmout Wells and the new drilling programs under the new PODs.”). Under that agreement, Black Diamond agreed to cover all costs associated with the first fourteen wells it drilled until they were completed, electrified, dewatered, and hooked up. But Wold agreed to immediately begin covering its proportionate share of any new wells that Black Diamond drilled after January 1, 2008 (assuming Wold approved the invoices). So, whether Wold breached the Letter Agreement by failing to pay these invoices turns on whether they were for the initial 13 Appellate Case: 20-8050 Document: 010110641796 Date Filed: 02/07/2022 Page: 14 fourteen wells or for new wells drilled after 2008. If the costs related to the initial fourteen wells, the Letter Agreement absolved Wold of any duty to pay. The record suggests that these invoices related to the initial fourteen wells. Under the Letter Agreement, BDE had to “submit . . . invoices for the New Wells [wells drilled after January 1, 2008] for Wold’s review and approval.” But, as required by the Letter Agreement, Wold appears to have paid the fraction of the invoices it wasn’t disputing. That is, on October 16, 2008, Black Diamond sent Wold an invoice for $689,975.78. Wold paid $684,055.51 of this amount and objected to the remaining $5,920.27 balance. Then on December 3, 2008, Black Diamond sent Wold an invoice for $480,641.63. Wold paid $58,908.02 of this amount and objected to the remaining $421,733.30 because it included costs for the fourteen wells Black Diamond agreed to cover under the Letter Agreement. True, Wold never paid the outstanding balance, but it nonetheless performed according to the Letter Agreement. That is, it paid its proportionate share of costs for the new wells drilled after January 1, 2008, and it refused to pay for costs that were Black Diamond’s responsibility to cover, such as costs associated with the first fourteen wells. Peter D. presents no evidence that those invoices related to new wells that Wold should have financed. Absent such evidence, we must affirm the district court’s finding that Wold didn’t breach the Letter Agreement, at least by failing to pay these invoices.