Court Opinion

ID: 9352173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-05 16:00:43.285042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:58:18.849354
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11375    Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2023   Page: 1 of 11

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-11375
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        P.D. MILLER FARMS, LLC,
                                  Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant,
        versus
        BASF CATALYSTS, LLC,

                                 Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00019-LAG
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11375      Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 01/05/2023     Page: 2 of 11

        2                      Opinion of the Court                22-11375

        Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                P.D. Miller Farms, LLC holds the surface rights in fee simple
        title to a 600-acre property in Decatur County, Georgia and BASF
        Catalysts, LLC owns the mineral rights. P.D. Miller Farms now
        seeks a declaratory judgment that under Georgia’s mineral lapse
        statute it has gained ownership of the mineral rights through
        adverse possession. To prevail, P.D. Miller Farms must prove that
        BASF “neither worked nor attempted to work the mineral rights
        nor paid any taxes due on them for a period of seven years”
        preceding the action. O.C.G.A. § 44-5-168(a).
               The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
        BASF. It found that there was no genuine question of material fact
        that the mineral rights were “worked” when BASF drilled four
        holes on the property to extract core samples. On appeal, P.D.
        Miller Farms challenges that finding, and we reverse. The evidence
        BASF provided leaves open a genuine question whether the drilling
        occurred on the property, and P.D. Miller Farms submitted
        evidence that it did not. We also conclude that a genuine question
        exists as to whether BASF paid taxes on the mineral rights.
        Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order granting
        summary judgment in favor of BASF.
USCA11 Case: 22-11375      Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2023     Page: 3 of 11

        22-11375               Opinion of the Court                         3

                                          I.
               In 1943, W. B. Miller acquired fee simple title from the
        Floridin Company to a 600-acre property in Decatur County,
        Georgia subject to a reservation of the mineral rights in favor of the
        grantor. The surface rights have been in the Miller family since
        then and are now held by P.D. Miller Farms, LLC. The mineral
        rights were later conveyed to the Engelhard Corporation, which
        was subsequently acquired by BASF Catalysts, LLC.
               In November 2020, BASF entered the property with
        personnel and equipment with the intent to explore the minerals.
        Their personnel noticed that new pines were planted on the
        property, prompting BASF to contact P.D. Miller, Jr., the owner
        and manager of P.D. Miller Farms. At a meeting the next day,
        Miller disputed that BASF owned mineral rights in the property
        and requested that BASF remove its equipment. BASF complied
        with Miller’s request.
               P.D. Miller Farms then filed a complaint for declaratory
        judgment in the Superior Court of Decatur County, Georgia. It
        alleged that BASF’s mineral rights on the property had lapsed and
        that as owner of the real property, P.D. Miller Farms was entitled
        to the mineral rights in the property under Georgia’s mineral lapse
        statute, O.C.G.A. § 44-5-168.
               BASF removed the action to the Middle District of Georgia,
        alleging that removal was proper because the district court had
USCA11 Case: 22-11375        Document: 33-1        Date Filed: 01/05/2023       Page: 4 of 11

        4                         Opinion of the Court                    22-11375

        diversity jurisdiction over this action.1 BASF filed an answer and
        counterclaim for declaratory judgment of its own. It requested
        that the district court issue a judgment declaring that: (1) BASF’s
        mineral rights on the property are valid; and (2) BASF has the right
        to exercise its mineral rights on the property without the
        interference of P.D. Miller Farms.
               BASF then filed a motion for summary judgment. In its
        memorandum in support, BASF presented evidence that it says
        proves it paid the assessed taxes on the mineral rights during the
        statutory period and that it “worked” those mineral rights in 2019.
                That evidence included affidavits and supporting
        documentations from BASF employees. Randolph Jenkins, a BASF
        Mining Supervisor, attested that in 2019 he and Nathalie LeGare, a
        BASF Mine Engineer, “arranged for the Miller property to be
        drilled by our drilling contractor.” He added that BASF’s surveying
        company “would have entered the property and marked the
        proposed drill hole locations” and that the results of the drilling
        “showed that there appeared to be a large deposit of valuable
        minerals on the Miller tract.”
              LeGare also submitted an affidavit. She attested that she
        contacted the survey company to locate the hole locations on the

        1 BASF removed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446.
                                                                                On
        appeal, we granted BASF’s motion to supplement the record to establish that
        it is a citizen of Delaware and New Jersey. Because P.D. Miller Farms is a
        citizen of Georgia, we concluded that the parties are diverse.
USCA11 Case: 22-11375      Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2023     Page: 5 of 11

        22-11375               Opinion of the Court                         5

        Miller property for Logan Drilling USA—BASF’s “normal drilling
        company”—to drill. She attached a survey plot identifying the hole
        locations on the Miller property, and invoices from Logan Drilling
        that she claims leads her to believe “Logan entered the Miller
        property to drill” four holes and obtain core samples. The invoices
        covered work performed from June 21, 2019 to June 29, 2019 and
        from July 8, 2019 to July 11, 2019. LeGare says that the “holes were
        drilled on July 11 on the Miller property.” Based on the results of
        this drilling, LeGare attests that BASF made plans for further
        exploration on the Miller property.
               In response, P.D. Miller Farms submitted an affidavit by
        P.D. Miller, Jr., who attested that he has been on the farm “virtually
        everyday” and that he has “not seen, observed, heard of, nor seen
        signs of anyone working, or attempting to work, the mineral
        rights.” Further, Miller attested that he “found no evidence on the
        property” that the activities described in the Jenkins and LeGare
        affidavits were conducted. He says that “[n]one of my trees, roads,
        ditches, pasture indicate that equipment and personnel were ever
        on the property” and that “[n]either I nor anyone in my employ
        observed equipment and personnel on the property.”
              The parties also disputed whether BASF has paid taxes on
        the mineral rights within the preceding seven years. BASF
        provided proof that it paid taxes on the mineral rights associated
        with MR0080—the number assigned by the county for taxation of
        the mineral rights—every year since 1998 (except for 2009). But
        due to a clerical error, all parties agree that MR0080 did not
USCA11 Case: 22-11375        Document: 33-1        Date Filed: 01/05/2023       Page: 6 of 11

        6                         Opinion of the Court                    22-11375

        correspond to the mineral rights on the Miller property. Miller
        submitted an affidavit from Jon Mark Harrell, the Tax
        Commissioner of Decatur County, Georgia. Based on his review
        of the county records, he attested that he has found “no record of
        BASF Catalysts, LLC, nor its predecessor, Engelhard Corporation,
        being invoiced for, or paying, any taxes for the mineral
        interests/mineral rights reserved with respect to the property.”
        Miller’s other affiant, Amy Rathel, the Chief Appraiser at the
        Decatur County Georgia Tax Assessors Office, explained that
        BASF had been invoiced for, and paid taxes on, mineral rights
        associated with a different nearby piece of property owned in fee
        simple by BASF.
               The district court granted BASF’s motion for summary
        judgment.2 The district court concluded that the evidence on the
        record established that BASF worked its mineral rights, within the
        meaning of the applicable statute, in June and July 2019.
        Accordingly, there was “no genuine issue of material fact to be
        tried, as Defendant has presented unrefuted evidence that it
        worked its mineral rights to a sufficient degree to retain those rights
        under O.C.G.A. § 44-5-168.” Because this conclusion resolved the
        summary judgment motion in BASF’s favor, the district court did

        2 After issuing a set of jurisdiction questions to the parties, we previously
        determined that the district court’s order granting BASF’s motion for
        summary judgment resolved P.D. Miller Farm’s claim as well as BASF’s
        counterclaim. Accordingly, the order is a final order subject to appeal under
        28 U.S.C. § 1291.
USCA11 Case: 22-11375      Document: 33-1       Date Filed: 01/05/2023     Page: 7 of 11

        22-11375                Opinion of the Court                         7

        not address whether BASF also paid taxes on the mineral rights
        during the statutory period.
                                          II.
                A district court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment
        is reviewed de novo. Westchester Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Evanston
        Ins. Co., 48 F.4th 1298, 1301 (11th Cir. 2022). We “apply the same
        legal standards as the district court and view all facts and reasonable
        inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id.
        at 1301–02 (quotation omitted and alteration adopted). Summary
        judgment is proper when a “movant shows that there is no genuine
        dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
        judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
                                         III.
               Georgia’s mineral lapse statute provides that if the owner of
        the mineral rights has “neither worked nor attempted to work the
        mineral rights nor paid any taxes due on them for a period of seven
        years,” then the owner of the real property in fee simple may gain
        absolute title to the mineral rights. O.C.G.A. § 44-5-168(a). Put
        another way, when the mineral rights are separately held from the
        surface rights, “the owner of the mineral rights loses them by
        nonuse plus nonpayment of taxes.” Fisch v. Randall Mill Corp.,
        262 Ga. 861, 862 (1993) (quotation omitted).
               So to be entitled to summary judgment, BASF must show
        that there is no genuine question of material fact that it has worked
        or attempted to work the mineral rights or paid taxes on such rights
USCA11 Case: 22-11375      Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2023     Page: 8 of 11

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11375

        in the preceding seven years. O.C.G.A. § 44-5-168(a); Hayes v.
        Howell, 251 Ga. 580, 583 (1983). BASF argues that it is entitled to
        summary judgment because it “worked or attempted to work” the
        mineral rights by drilling and collecting core samples in June and
        July 2019. P.D. Miller Farms contests that the drilling occurred on
        the property as a factual matter and also contends that as a legal
        matter this activity would be insufficient under the statute.
               We start with the legal question. If BASF can demonstrate
        that it drilled holes and collected core samples on the Miller
        property, it will meet the statutory requirement of working or
        attempting to work the mineral rights. The Georgia Supreme
        Court has instructed that to meet this standard “the owner of the
        mineral interests must carry on an operation to explore for, use,
        produce, or extract minerals in the land.” Fisch, 262 Ga. at 862.
        This means that the “owner of a mineral interest must do more
        than conduct genealogical research and pick up rock samples to
        meet the statutory requirement of working or attempting to work
        the mineral rights.” Id. at 863. Consequently, in Fisch, “walking
        the property and collecting ten to twelve rock samples for analysis”
        was insufficient as a matter of law. Id. at 861–63.
               Here, BASF contends that they did not simply collect rock
        samples; they drilled holes on the property and extracted core
        samples. This is categorically different than collecting surface rock
        samples. If proven, this activity is sufficient to establish that BASF
        carried on an operation to explore for and extract minerals in the
        land.
USCA11 Case: 22-11375      Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 01/05/2023     Page: 9 of 11

        22-11375               Opinion of the Court                        9

               Moving to the facts, we conclude that a genuine question of
        fact exists as to whether the drilling was done on the Miller
        property. In support of its motion, BASF provided the survey of
        the property identifying four holes to be drilled. It also provided
        invoices from Logan Drilling for work performed between June
        21st and July 18th. In total, the invoices show that sixty holes were
        drilled during this period. According to LeGare’s affidavit, four of
        these holes were drilled on the Miller property on July 11.
               BASF has not demonstrated that these invoices correspond
        to holes drilled on the Miller property. On their face, the invoices
        do not identify the location of the drilling. The invoices say that
        the drilling was performed at “Complex A” but Complex A is not
        identified or defined. And the holes identified in the survey plot do
        not correspond to the holes that BASF claims were drilled on July
        11. The survey plot identifies holes with “CSH” numbers of 5001,
        5002, 5003, and 5004. The invoices, however, show that CSH 1008,
        1002, 1003 and 1009 were drilled on July 11. Though the invoices
        may very well be for worked performed on the Miller property, the
        record presented to the district court does not conclusively
        establish that they are.           Accordingly, the supporting
        documentation attached to BASF’s affidavits do not show that no
        genuine question of material fact exists.
               With the documents submitted by BASF not resolving the
        factual question, we are left with dueling and contradictory sets of
        affidavits. P.D. Miller avers that he has not found any evidence that
        BASF drilled on the property nor is aware of any evidence. BASF’s
USCA11 Case: 22-11375     Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 01/05/2023     Page: 10 of 11

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11375

        affiants claim that they did. While we agree with the district court
        that Miller’s affidavit is relatively weak evidence, “an affidavit
        which satisfies Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may
        create an issue of material fact and preclude summary judgment
        even if it is self-serving and uncorroborated.” United States v.
        Stein, 881 F.3d 853, 854 (11th Cir. 2018) (en banc). And at summary
        judgment, it is not the role of the district court to weigh competing
        evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses. A.L. ex rel. D.L.
        v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts US, Inc., 900 F.3d 1270, 1289 (11th
        Cir. 2018). Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to P.D.
        Miller Farms, a genuine question of material fact exists as to
        whether BASF drilled on the Miller property.
                Finally, we conclude that BASF has also not demonstrated
        that it is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that it paid
        taxes on the mineral rights in the seven years preceding the
        complaint. While BASF has demonstrated that it paid taxes on
        parcel MR0080, the affidavits of Harrell and Rathel create a genuine
        question of material fact as to whether those taxes correspond to
        the mineral interests associated with the Miller property. We
        therefore cannot affirm the district court’s order on this alternative
        ground.
                                   *      *      *
              To prevail on summary judgment, BASF was required to
        demonstrate that there was no genuine question that it either
        worked or attempted to work the mineral rights or paid taxes on
        those mineral rights. Because BASF failed to meet this burden, we
USCA11 Case: 22-11375   Document: 33-1   Date Filed: 01/05/2023   Page: 11 of 11

        22-11375            Opinion of the Court                   11

        REVERSE the district court’s order granting summary judgment
        in favor of BASF and REMAND to the district court for further
        proceedings.