Bechtholdt v. Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc.
2026 COA 57. No. 25CA0227. Real Property—Quiet Title—Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties—CRCP 54(b).
July 9, 2026
The Hergerts severed the surface and mineral estates of four parcels, recording four separate deeds conveying the surface estate in each parcel to one of four limited partnerships. The mineral estate was apparently not divided into separate parcels. Parcel 4’s surface estate was conveyed to Hergert Limited Partnership No. 4 (Partnership 4). Betty Bechtholdt received a limited partnership interest in Partnership 4, which was later dissolved, and the surface rights to Parcel 4 were conveyed to Betty and others. The Parcel 4 owners subsequently conveyed Parcel 4 to a company that divided it into lots, which were sold to dozens of buyers (lot owners). The lot owners entered into oil and gas leases with Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc. (Extraction), which began extracting minerals from Parcel 4. Betty maintained that she did not transfer any of her mineral rights underlying Parcel 4, and she filed this case against Extraction, the lot owners’ association, individual lot owners, and various other entities and individuals associated with oil and gas production on Parcel 4. Betty alleged quiet title and declaratory judgment claims as well as various other claims, including fraud, civil theft, unjust enrichment, and mineral trespass. She also requested an accounting against all defendants. The district court entered an order on May 8, 2025, dismissing certain claims, and then denied Betty’s request for reconsideration on July 24. Betty requested, and the court certified, the two orders as final under CRCP 54(b). The quiet title claim was left unresolved.
On appeal, Betty, through her brother Robert as personal representative for her estate, appealed the district court’s dismissal of the estate’s mineral trespass and unjust enrichment claims and requests for an accounting and for restitution, based on the court’s certification of its order on those claims under Rule 54(b). Betty also appealed the district court’s denial of her motion to reconsider. The court of appeals concluded that when a plaintiff’s claims directly affect the relief, if any, that the plaintiff and others claiming an interest in the subject property may obtain as part of a quiet title action, certification under Rule 54(b) of those claims is improper. And when the plaintiff’s secondary claims relate to monies the plaintiff is purportedly owed involving an alleged property interest in the quiet title claim, the quiet title claim must be resolved as to all parties and the secondary claims in this circumstance are not capable of final resolution for purposes of Rule 54(b) certification. Here, the district court erred by certifying and entering a final judgment on Betty’s mineral trespass and unjust enrichment claims, and remedial requests for accounting and restitution, because resolution of those claims directly affects what relief, if any, Betty or others alleging an interest in the subject property may obtain under the quiet title claim. And the quiet title action must be resolved as to all parties because the secondary claims, such as civil theft and fraud, cannot be finally resolved for purposes of Rule 54(b) certification since Betty alleges entitlement to monies involving the same property at issue in the quiet title action. The district court thus erred by certifying the May 8 and July 24 orders as final under Rule 54(b).
The appeal was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.