AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The case involves a dispute over the disposal of salt water, a byproduct of oil and gas drilling, into a well (E-15) located on the plaintiffs' property, the McNeill Ranch. The defendants operated a salt water disposal system that transported salt water from off-site drilling operations to E-15 via pipelines. The plaintiffs, heirs and successors to the property, alleged trespass and conversion, claiming the defendants disposed of salt water without proper agreements or compensation over a span of 36 years (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• McNeill v. Rice Eng'g & Operating, Inc., 2003-NMCA-078: The Court of Appeals reversed a partial summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the effect of a release agreement between the parties (para 5).
• District Court, November 2003: Granted partial summary judgment, barring claims for trespass and conversion occurring before October 27, 1994, based on the statute of limitations and lack of evidence of fraudulent concealment (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the defendants committed a continuing trespass by disposing of off-site salt water into E-15 without proper agreements or compensation. They invoked the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment to toll the statute of limitations and claimed the defendants intentionally deprived them of compensation, amounting to conversion (paras 9-10, 14-16, 20-21).
• Defendants: Asserted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to recover for injuries occurring before they acquired title to the property in 1995. They argued that the statute of limitations barred claims for pre-October 27, 1994, injuries and that the continuing trespass and continuing wrong theories were inapplicable. They also denied fraudulent concealment and contested the viability of the conversion claim (paras 11-13, 19).

Legal Issues

• Whether the plaintiffs' trespass claims for pre-October 27, 1994, injuries are barred by the statute of limitations.
• Whether the discovery rule or fraudulent concealment doctrine applies to toll the statute of limitations for the trespass claims.
• Whether the plaintiffs' conversion claim is viable.

Disposition

• The Court reversed the partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' trespass claims for pre-October 27, 1994, injuries, allowing trial on the discovery rule issue (para 44).
• The Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' conversion claim (para 44).

Reasons

Per Sutin J. (Alarid and Fry JJ. concurring):

• Fraudulent Concealment: The Court found no evidence of intentional misrepresentation or concealment by the defendants. The plaintiffs failed to present specific facts to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding fraudulent concealment (paras 22-23).

• Discovery Rule: The Court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the plaintiffs and their predecessors knew or should have known about the salt water disposal before October 27, 1994. The plaintiffs presented evidence, including affidavits, suggesting that the disposal operations were not open and obvious, and that they discovered the nature of the operations only in 1995 (paras 30-40).

• Continuing Trespass and Wrong: The Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the statute of limitations began to run only after the last disposal of salt water. Instead, it held that the statute began to run with each discrete injury or disposal. However, the discovery rule could potentially extend the accrual date for the claims (paras 24-29).

• Conversion Claim: The Court affirmed the dismissal of the conversion claim, finding no evidence that the defendants owed or diverted money to which the plaintiffs were entitled. The claim did not fit within traditional conversion law, and the plaintiffs failed to provide legal authority to support their argument (paras 41-43).