Pronschinske Trust Dated March 21, 1995 v. Kaw Valley Companies, Inc. et al

Filing 54

Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Opinion and Order, Judgment and Docket Sheet to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re: 52 Notice of Appeal, (Attachments: # 1 Opinion and Order, # 2 Judgment, # 3 Docket Sheet) (lak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

PRONSCHINSKE TRUST DATED MARCH 21, 1995,
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION AND ORDER
16-cv-640-slc

KAW VALLEY COMPANIES, INC. AND
KC PROPPANTS, LLC,
Defendants.

This is business contract lawsuit removed to federal court pursuant to diversity
jurisdiction. Land owned by Ivan and Beverly Pronschinske contains frac sand, which is useful
to gas and oil fracking operations.1 Through their trust, the Pronschinskes entered into a 2012
Mining Lease Agreement (the Lease) with defendant Kaw Valley Companies, so that Kaw Valley
could mine the sand. Ultimately, Kaw Valley walked away without removing any sand, which
the Lease allowed it to do. Even so, plaintiff claims that defendants owe it $400,000 because
Kaw Valley’s activities on the property constituted the “commencement of mine and quarry”
operations that triggered defendants’ payment obligations under the Lease.
Defendants respond that they owe nothing: under the Lease’s plain terms, these
payments were not triggered until materials actually had been mined or quarried from the
property, and that never happened.
Both sides assert that the Lease’s terms are unambiguous so that the court can decide this
lawsuit by an analysis limited to the four corners of the document. I agree that the Lease is not
ambiguous. Its terms favor defendants. Accordingly, I am granting defendants’ motion for
summary judgment.

1

rock.

“Fracking,” is a hydraulic fracturing process used to extract natural gas and oil from hard

The facts are not in dispute:

FACTS
On June 28, 2012, Ivan Pronschinske and Beverly Pronschinske, as trustees of the
Pronschinske Trust, entered into a Mining Lease Agreement (the Lease) with Kaw Valley.2 The
Lease gave Kaw Valley the exclusive right to “quarry, process, crush, manufacture, wash, remove
and sell (‘mine’ or ‘quarry’) all sand, gravel, stone and other rock products” from plaintiff’s
property in Trempealeau County, Wisconsin, under specified terms and conditions. Mining
Lease Agreement, dkt. 26-2, ¶1. The Lease subsequently was assigned from Kaw Valley to KC
Proppants in an Assignment of Lease dated February 26, 2015. The term of the Lease was for
five years, unless otherwise terminated under the Lease, id., ¶2. The Lease announces that it
contains “the entire agreement between the parties.” ¶28.
The Lease created three sequential payment obligations for defendants: (1) a $20,000
“Initial Royalty Credit,” payable upon execution of the Lease, and which was to be “used to
offset any future amounts and royalties due Lessor from Lessee,” id., ¶3; (2) a $45,000
“Commencement Royalty Credit,” id., ¶5; and (3) “Production Royalties,” including a $75,000
“Minimum Production Royalty.” Id., ¶6. Kaw Valley paid the $20,000 Initial Royalty Credit

2

The Pronschinske Trust, dated M arch 21, 1995, is a trust created in the state of W isconsin
with an Arcadia, W isconsin address. At the times relevant to this lawsuit, Ivan and Beverly
Pronschinske were its trustees. Defendant Kaw Valley Companies, Inc. is a Kansas corporation with
its principal place of business located in Kansas City. Defendant KC Proppants, LLC is a Kansas
limited liability company with its principal place of business in Kansas, but it is no longer in operation.
KC has two members, Benjamin Kates and Patrick Scherzer, both of whom are residents of Kansas.
Diversity jurisdiction is present.

2

upon execution of the lease.

The issue in this suit is whether defendant owes the

Commencement Royalty Credit or the Minimum Production Royalty.
Paragraph 5 of the Lease establishes the “Commencement Royalty Credit”:
Upon Lessee’s commencement of mine or quarry operations as
determined by Lessee in its reasonable discretion, Lessee agrees to
pay to Lessor the sum of Forty Five Thousand Dollars
($45,000.00) (the “Commencement Royalty Credit”). The
Commencement Royalty Credit shall be nonrefundable, but shall
be used to offset any future amounts and royalties due Lessor from
Lessee.
The phrase “mine or quarry” is defined in paragraph 1 of the Lease to mean “to quarry, process,
crush, manufacture, wash, remove and sell . . . all sand, gravel, stone and other rock products[.]”
Paragraph 6 of the Lease provides for the payment of weight-based royalties once
Products are “mined from the Property;” these royalties are referred to as “Production
Royalties.” Paragraph 6 reads, in full:
Lessee shall pay Lessor a royalty of $1.50/ton (2,000 lbs.) for the
first 65,000 ton of sand, stone and rock products mined from the
Property in satisfaction of the offset requirements for the Initial
Royalty Credit and Commencement Royalty Credit. Thereafter
Lessee shall pay Lessor a royalty of $2.50/ton (2,000 lbs.) for sand,
stone and rock products mined from the Property (all such
royalties are hereinafter referred to as “Production Royalties”) for
the sand, stone and rock products mined from the Property weekly
(measured from the Effective Date). Lessee shall make such
payments to Lessor no later than the Friday following the week in
which products are mined from the Property. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained herein, Lessee shall pay to
Lessor an annual minimum Production Royalty of $75,000 (the
“Minimum Production Royalty”). In the event that, as of the
month containing the anniversary date of the Effective Date, the
monthly Production Royalties (as such may be prorated) fail to
meet or exceed the Minimum Production Royalty, Lessee shall pay
to Lessor the difference between the actual amount paid to Lessor
during the year and the Minimum Production Royalty for such

3

year. This catch-up payment will be made with the next monthly
payment due hereunder.
Paragraph 9 states, in part:
The royalties payable under paragraph 6 and paragraph 7 shall be
payable based on the removal from (or transportation across) the
Property. All sand, gravel, stone and other rock products mined
from the Property shall be weighed at the time of removal from the
Property and the royalties shall be based on the actual weight as
reflected in weight tickets.
The Trempealeau County Department of Land Management (“DLM”) grants permits to
mining operators that imposes pre-conditions and operational conditions on any mining
operations in the county. Pre-conditions must be met prior to beginning mining operations.
After executing the Lease, Kaw Valley took a number of steps in preparation to mine or quarry
the property. Specifically, these steps consisted of: 1) surveying the property; 2) conducting
well checks; 3) taking soil borings; 4) entering into an agreement to pay for an upgrade of
County Highway N; and 5) paying for the widening of the road that accesses the property.
Defendants spent at least $750,000, primarily on engineering, preparing to operate the mine.
The Lease makes clear that defendants are “not obligated to extract any materials or sell
any products by virtue of [the] Lease,” (see ¶1), that it is in defendants’ “reasonable discretion”
when and whether to “commence[] . . . mine or quarry operations,” (see ¶5), and that the Lease
is “predicated on the Property being properly zoned for the contemplated quarry operations and
immediately and continually available for Lessee’s contemplated use.” (See ¶14).
Paragraph 14 further provides:
Should Lessee be prevented from conducting its anticipated
normal business operations because of a lack of zoning, access, or
any necessary governmental permit or approval, or because of any
other condition (including without limitation, depletion or

4

inadequacy of reserves) which in Lessee’s opinion renders or
threatens to render Lessee’s contemplated operations commercially
infeasible or impracticable, then (A) Lessee shall have the right, but
not the obligation, to undertake such efforts as it deems
reasonable and necessary, in its sole discretion, to secure necessary
zoning classification, permit, approval, or access, or to remove any
such condition, and Lessor agrees to cooperate fully with Lessee in
this regard, including but not limited to, execution of any
documents and attendance of any hearings which Lessee
reasonably deems necessary, or (B) with or without exercise of
Lessee’s rights under clause (A), Lessee shall be entitled to cancel
this Lease, as to all or any portion of the Property, upon ten (10)
days’ prior written notice to Lessor.
Kaw Valley submitted a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) application to the Department
of Land Management dated October 28, 2012, and the DLM issued “Conditional Use Permit
Conditions” on or around January 9, 2013. On February 4, 2015, the DLM granted Kaw
Valley’s CUP Application. However, defendants determined that it was commercially infeasible
or impracticable to engage in mining activities on the Property. Defendants sent a letter to
plaintiff dated January 27, 2016, terminating the Lease. On February 5, 2016, the CUP lapsed
after the DLM determined that Kaw Valley had “not met or complied with [their] submitted
plan for activity requirements, as no activity has taken place at the site.”

OPINION
Plaintiff does not dispute that defendants’ termination of the Lease was proper. It
contends, however, that defendants owe it the $75,000 per year Minimum Production Royalty
for the three years after the Lease was executed as well as the two years after cancellation, plus
the $45,000 Commencement Royalty Credit (less the $20,000 Initial Royalty Credit that
defendants already paid). Defendants contend that they do not owe any Commencement

5

Royalty or the Minimum Production Royalty because they never commenced mining operations
and never extracted any products from the property.
Contract interpretation seeks to give effect to the parties' intentions. Tufail v. Midwest
Hospitality, LLC, 2013 WI 62, ¶ 25, 348 Wis.2d 631, 833 N.W.2d 586. If the terms of a
contract are plain and unambiguous, then it is the court's duty to construe the contract
according to its plain meaning even though a party may have construed it differently. Woodward
Commc'ns, Inc. v. Schockley Commc'ns Corp., 2001 WI App 30, ¶ 9, 240 Wis.2d 492, 498, 622
N.W.2d 756, 759-760. The court must construe the contract language consistent with “what
a reasonable person would understand the words to mean under the circumstances.” Seitzinger
v. Community Health Network, 2004 WI 28, ¶ 22, 270 Wis.2d 1, 676 N.W.2d 426.

I. The Commencement Royalty Credit
Paragraph 5 of the Lease establishes the Commencement Royalty Credit. It states:
Upon Lessee’s commencement of mine or quarry operations as
determined by Lessee in its reasonable discretion, Lessee agrees to
pay to Lessor the sum of Forty Five Thousand Dollars
($45,000.00) (the “Commencement Royalty Credit”). The
Commencement Royalty Credit shall be nonrefundable, but shall
be used to offset any future amounts and royalties due Lessor from
Lessee.
The parties dispute the meaning of the phrase “mine or quarry operations.” Defendants
argue that the term keys off of the definition of “mine” or “quarry” as defined in Paragraph 1.
Paragraph 1 specifies that “mine” or “quarry” means to “quarry, process, crush, manufacture,
wash, remove and sell . . . all sand, gravel stone and other rock products . . .”.

Lease, ¶1.

According to defendants, until any of these activities occurred, there were no “mine or quarry

6

operations” on the property. It is undisputed that defendants never engaged in any of these
activities on the property.
Plaintiff argues that accepting defendants’ view would render the term “operations”
meaningless. In plaintiff’s view, adding the word “operations” after “mine or quarry” broadens
the scope of activities covered by the definition in paragraph 1. Specifically, argues plaintiff, the
term includes the steps taken by defendants to secure a CUP and to prepare to mine or quarry.
In support of this argument, plaintiff has selected Merriam-Webster’s sixth definition of the
word “operations:” “a usually military action, mission, or maneuver including its planning and
execution.” Br. in Opp., dkt. 39, at 12 (citing Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2017,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/operation (June 9, 2017) (“Operation,” definition
6)(emphasis added).
Plaintiff’s contention that “mine or quarry operations” includes actions necessary to
secure a CUP and assess the feasibility of operating a mine in advance of any actual mining or
quarrying strains the actual terms of the Lease beyond their plain and ordinary meaning. If
plaintiff’s definition is correct, then which action by defendants would not be deemed to be a
part of the planning stage for mining or quarrying? Everything the parties said and did was part
of the plan to undertake mining or quarrying on plaintiff’s land. Yet ¶¶ 1, 5 & 14 of the Lease,
quoted above, elucidate a sequence of events that clearly anticipates that mining or quarrying
operations will commence on some future date, but only if certain conditions are met and only
if defendants choose to commence, which they are not obliged to do.
To reach its favored definition of “operation,” plaintiff leapfrogs over Merriam-Webster’s
first and second definitions of the word, namely: “performance of a practical work or something

7

involving the practical application of principles or processes,” followed by: “2 a) an exertion of
power or influence . . . b) the quality or state of being functional or operative . . . c) a method
or manner of functioning.” Id. See also Operation, New Oxford American Dictionary (2d ed.
2005) (“the fact or condition of functioning or being active” or “an active process; a discharge
of a function”); Operation, Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.com/browse/operation (last visited
Aug. 9, 2017) (1. “an act or instance, process, or manner of functioning or operating”).
Consistent with the primary definition of “operation,” ordinary people reading paragraph
5 of the Lease would understand the phrase “commencement of mine or quarry operations” to
mean when the mine or quarry became active by actually mining or quarrying sand. Ordinary
people would not understand the phrase to encompass preparatory activity that occurred before
mining or quarrying began.
This is all the more evident when the reader considers that “the meaning of particular
provisions in the contract is to be ascertained with reference to the contract as a whole.”
Tempelis v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 169 Wis.2d 1, 9, 485 N.W.2d 217 (1992). The term
“operation” or “operations” is used in several other paragraphs in the Lease, including:
•

Paragraph 2, providing that Lease will continue beyond its
original 5-year term so long as Lessee “continuously
conducts mining or quarrying operations at the Property;”

•

Paragraph 10, providing that “Lessee’s operations shall be
conducted in a workmanlike manner with as little waste of
sand, stone and rock products as practicable;”

•

Paragraph 12, providing that Lessee will indemnify Lessor
against liabilities arising “out of Lessee’s use, occupancy or
operations on the Property under the terms of this Lease in
pursuit of its mining operations at the Property;”

8

•

Paragraph 14, providing that the Lease is predicated on the
property being properly zoned for the contemplated
“quarry operation” and that Lessee had the right to
terminate the Lease because of conditions that render
“Lessee’s contemplated operations” commercially or
practically infeasible; and

•

Paragraph 26, providing that “Lessee shall conduct its
mining operations” in compliance with recognized practices
and procedures in the mining industry and applicable laws.

In short, when the Lease is read as a whole, it is obvious that the term “operations”
contemplates actual mining or quarrying activities as opposed to pre-operation activities such
as engineering, surveying and taking soil samples. In particular, Paragraph 14 explains that
defendants were under no obligation to establish a mine or quarry on the property if they were
unable to obtain the necessary permits or if any other condition rendered the contemplated mine
commercially infeasible or impracticable. Clearly, plaintiff understood that defendants would
be undertaking activities on the property to secure those permits and to assess the commercial
feasibility of a mine. It is reasonable to conclude that if the parties had intended for such
activities to have triggered the Commencement Royalty, then they would have said so in specific
terms. Put another way, it is not reasonable or plausible to conclude that the word “operations”
after the term “mine or quarry” in paragraph 5 evidences an intent to broaden the term “mine
or quarry” to encompass steps taken before any mining or quarrying actually occurred. Giving
the contract a plain and ordinary reading, it is clear that the Commencement Royalty did not
become due until defendants actually commenced “mining” or “quarrying” as those terms are
defined in paragraph 1. Because these activities never occurred, plaintiff cannot recover on this
claim.

9

II. Minimum Production Royalty
Paragraph 6 of the Lease, set forth above, provides for the payment of weight-based
royalties—referred to as “Production Royalties”—once Products are “mined from the Property.”
It specifies a dollar amount per ton of sand, stone and rock products that defendants are to pay
plaintiff. Paragraph 6 also provides that, “[n]otwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
herein, Lessee shall pay to Lessor an annual minimum Production Royalty of $75,000 (the
‘Minimum Production Royalty’),” with any shortfalls between the monthly Production Royalties
and Minimum Production Royalty to be made up on an annual basis.
Seizing on Paragraph 6's “Notwithstanding” clause, plaintiff argues that the annual
Minimum Production Royalty was triggered regardless whether any products ever were mined
from the property. This argument is untenable. As defendants point out, the entirety of
Paragraph 6 relates exclusively to the payment of Production Royalties; the $75,000 payment
itself is described as a Minimum Production Royalty. Giving Paragraph 6 an ordinary and plain
reading, it is clear that the Minimum Production Royalty, like the Production Royalties, is not
owed until products are “mined from the property.” The “notwithstanding” clause makes clear
that once mining began, if Production Royalties were low, then defendants nevertheless were
obliged to pony up a floor of $75,000 in yearly royalty payments. The clear purpose of this
clause is to protect plaintiff from unanticipated slowdowns in production after mining operations
began.
Further, if the parties truly had contemplated a lease that guaranteed plaintiff an annual
payment of $75,000 regardless whether any products were mined from the property, they could
have just said so. As defendants point out, if this were the case, then it would have been more

10

logical for the parties to have included a stand-alone paragraph that required defendants to pay
plaintiff at least $75,000 a year upon execution of the Lease. It would make no sense to insert
a dependent clause introducing the fourth sentence in a paragraph devoted exclusively to
payment of Production Royalties.
Once again, plaintiff’s interpretation of the Lease is contrary to its plain and
unambiguous terms. Accordingly, its claim that it is owed Minimum Production Royalties in
the amount of $75,000 per year for five years is rejected. Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment on this claim.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dkt. 25, is
GRANTED. The clerk of court is ordered to enter judgment for defendants and close this case.

Entered this 15th day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

11