Opinion ID: 2787495
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: [¶4] The parties own interests in certain oil and gas leases in Sublette County, Wyoming. Ultra Resources, Inc. v. Hartman, 2010 WY 36, ¶ 10, 226 P.3d 889, 902 (Wyo. 2010) (Ultra I). Defendants Ultra and SWEPI4 are working interest owners and operators of the leases, defendant Lance Oil is a non-operator working interest owner, and the plaintiffs own a NPI in the leases. Id., ¶ 11, 226 P.3d at 902-03. In the underlying litigation, the district court entered a declaratory judgment recognizing the existence of the NPI and delineating the operators’ NPC accounting responsibilities. It also granted a monetary judgment against the defendants for the amount due to the plaintiffs for the NPI through December 31, 2006. Id., ¶¶ 14, 17, 226 P.3d at 903-04. With a few exceptions not relevant here, we affirmed the district court’s decision in Ultra I. After our mandate issued, the district court entered an amended judgment and the defendants paid the monetary judgment. [¶5] In July 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce judgment, claiming the defendants were not properly accounting to them as required by the earlier declaratory P.3d 161, 163, n.1 (Wyo. 2013), quoting Ultra Resources, Inc. v. McMurry Energy Co., 2004 WY 121, ¶ 11, 99 P.3d 959, 963 (Wyo. 2004). 4 At the time of the trial, Shell Rocky Mountain Production, LLC was an operator and SWEPI was a nonoperator working interest owner. Ultra I, ¶ 11, 226 P.3d at 902-03. On December 31, 2008, Shell merged into SWEPI and SWEPI took Shell’s position as operator of the relevant leases. 2 judgment and the NPC. The defendants asserted the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the matters raised in the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce and the plaintiffs should have commenced a new action instead. The district court concluded it had jurisdiction and issued a number of orders on the merits of the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce. [¶6] The primary order at issue here pertains to the defendants’ attempts to charge pre2007 expenses to calculate the NPI starting January 1, 2007. The district court ruled that the NPI had been fully calculated through December 31, 2006 at trial, and the NPC required expenses to be charged to the NPI in the month following the date the expenses were invoiced. Consequently, the district court refused to allow the defendants to charge expenses invoiced prior to January 1, 2007, when calculating the 2007 NPI. The district court also concluded the plaintiffs were the prevailing parties in the enforcement proceeding pursuant to the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act (WRPA), segregation of the attorney fees between claims was not required and the operating defendants were required to pay the plaintiffs’ attorney fees. [¶7] The defendants appealed the district court’s decisions on the merits and its order on attorney fees. We will provide additional factual background as relevant to the issues discussed below.