Virginia Fuel Corp. v. Lambert Coal Co. , 291 Va. 89 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • PRESENT: Lemons, C.J., Goodwyn, Mims, Powell, Kelsey, and Roush, JJ., and Millette, S.J.
    VIRGINIA FUEL CORPORATION, ET AL.
    OPINION BY
    v. Record No. 150317                                         JUSTICE JANE MARUM ROUSH
    January 7, 2016
    LAMBERT COAL COMPANY, INC.
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DICKENSON COUNTY
    Henry A. Vanover, Judge
    In this appeal, we consider whether the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment
    to the plaintiff in an action for breach of contract, in sustaining the plaintiff’s demurrer to the
    defendants’ counterclaim alleging breach of contract, and in dismissing the defendants’
    affirmative defense of recoupment.
    I. Facts and Proceedings
    The appellants in this case are Virginia Fuel Corporation (“Virginia Fuel”) and James C.
    Justice Companies, Inc. (“Justice Companies”); the appellee is Lambert Coal Company
    (“Lambert”). On June 21, 2010, Virginia Fuel and Lambert entered into an agreement by which
    Virginia Fuel agreed to acquire certain assets owned by Lambert (the “Agreement”). The
    specific assets to be acquired were identified on Exhibit “A” to the Agreement as a mining
    permit described as “Permit No. 1101673 — Dark Hollow Strip Mine” and two coal leases
    described as
    Lambert Land, LLC (“LL”) coal-only and Heartwood Forestland (HFL) surface
    over the LL coal which the royalty together is from 8-10% on 1.1 million tons and
    the adjacent Alpha Coal (“Alpha”) fee property at 8% (approx. 400,000 tons).
    (The LL lease shall be referred to as the “Lambert Land Lease”; the Alpha Coal lease shall be
    referred to as the “Alpha Lease”; the Lambert Land Lease and the Alpha Lease shall be referred
    to collectively as the “Leases”.) The purchase price for the assets sold under the Agreement was
    $2,500,000. Two hundred thousand dollars of the purchase price was paid as a deposit upon the
    execution of the Agreement and was credited at closing to the portion of the purchase price
    allocated to the mining permit. The Agreement further provided that:
    The balance of the [p]ayment, will be royalty for the coal mined under the Alpha
    [L]ease and the [Lambert Land] Lease, Lambert being a “sublessor” under IRC
    § 631, payable monthly at the rate of $2.00 per ton of coal mined, with a
    minimum monthly royalty of $40,000.00.
    The Agreement provided that “[a]s soon as possible after signing this letter of [i]ntent,
    the parties shall negotiate the Assignment and Assumption Agreements, which shall contain
    customary provisions, conditions, representations, warranties, and terms that are mutually
    agreeable to the parties.” Despite Lambert’s and Virginia Fuel’s undertaking “in good faith . . .
    [to] use their best efforts to negotiate the Assignment and Assumption Agreements” there is no
    evidence in the record before us that any such assignment and assumption agreements were
    executed by Lambert and Virginia Fuel.
    Closing under the Agreement occurred on July 13, 2010. On that date, Lambert and
    Virginia Fuel entered into a security agreement (the “Security Agreement”), whereby Virginia
    Fuel, as “Borrower,” granted to Lambert, as “Lender,” a security interest in the mining permit,
    along with Virginia Fuel’s inventory and accounts receivable, in order to secure Virginia Fuel’s
    obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price under the Agreement. The Security
    Agreement provided that “[f]or purposes of default in payment of royalty under the Agreement,
    payments shall be deemed delinquent if not received by [Lambert] on or before the 15th of the
    month following the month in which the mineral is mined for purposes of computing the
    royalty.”
    2
    Also on July 13, 2010, Justice Companies executed a “Guaranty of Payment and
    Performance” (the “Guaranty”) pursuant to which Justice Companies guaranteed Lambert’s
    obligations under the Agreement, including the payment in full of the $2,300,000 deferred
    purchase price due under the Agreement. The Guaranty provided, in a recital, that “pursuant to
    the Agreement, [Lambert] extends credit to [Virginia Fuel] to be repaid by the mining of coal
    under DMLR Permit 1101673 . . . .”
    Virginia Fuel began mining coal in accordance with the mining permit and the Leases.
    Virginia Fuel made most of the payments required under the Agreement until March 2013. After
    March 2013, Virginia Fuel stopped making the minimum monthly payment of $40,000.
    Lambert filed suit against Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies on August 13, 2013. In
    its complaint, Lambert alleged that Virginia Fuel continued to mine coal pursuant to the mining
    permit and the Leases, but that Virginia Fuel had not made the minimum monthly payments of
    $40,000. Lambert alleged that it had demanded payment from Virginia Fuel, but that Virginia
    Fuel had not cured the default. Accordingly, Lambert accelerated the balance due under the
    Agreement. Lambert sought judgment against Virginia Fuel under the Agreement and Justice
    Companies under the Guaranty for the balance due of $1,001,706.94, plus costs and attorney’s
    fees.
    In response to the complaint, Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies filed an answer and
    grounds of defense in which they denied that they were obligated to Lambert for the unpaid
    purchase price and asserted the affirmative defense of “credit and/or offset” in an amount equal
    to the coal that Lambert “represented it was providing to [Virginia Fuel], but did not provide” or
    “was not able to provide” because “the coal was not available for [Virginia Fuel] as had been
    represented and agreed by [Lambert].”
    3
    Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies also filed a counterclaim against Lambert in which
    they alleged causes of action for breach of contract and constructive fraud. After Lambert filed a
    plea in bar alleging that the fraud count was barred by the statute of limitations, that claim was
    nonsuited. The breach of contract count of the counterclaim sought damages of $359,000,
    representing the “pro rata coal tonnage value from the Agreement which contained a $2.3 million
    purchase price for 1.5 million tons of coal when in fact there are only approximately 1.269
    million tons of coal contained within the [Lambert Land] Lease and the Alpha Lease,
    collectively.” 1 On February 27, 2014, Lambert’s demurrer to the breach of contract claim was
    sustained, with leave to amend within 14 days. Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies elected not
    to amend their counterclaim. 2
    In response to requests for admission, Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies admitted that
    Virginia Fuel had paid $1,298,293.06 of the deferred purchase price of $2,300,000 under the
    Agreement. Thus, Virginia Fuel conceded that it had not paid the balance of $1,001,706.94,
    which was the amount of Lambert’s ad damnum.
    Lambert moved for summary judgment on its complaint alleging Virginia Fuel’s breach
    of the Agreement and Justice Companies’ breach of the Guaranty. Lambert argued that there
    was no dispute about the amount of the deferred purchase price that remained unpaid. Further,
    Lambert argued, Virginia Fuel’s and Justice Companies’ defense of “credit/and or offset” was in
    1
    After discovery, Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies revised downward their estimate
    of the actual tonnage of mineable coal on the Lambert Land Lease to 668,000 tons. In addition,
    the actual amount of mineable coal on the Alpha Lease was approximately 163,000 tons. The
    complaint, however, was not amended to reflect the revised estimates of mineable coal.
    2
    On August 7, 2014, Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies re-filed their counterclaim
    alleging anew their cause of action for constructive fraud and adding a cause of action for
    reformation of the Agreement. In that this counterclaim was filed without leave of court, it was
    dismissed. Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies did not assign error to the dismissal of their
    second counterclaim and thus it is not part of this appeal.
    4
    effect a defense of recoupment, which failed as a matter of law because Lambert made no
    material misrepresentations as to the amount of mineable coal under the Leases.
    Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies opposed summary judgment, arguing that a genuine
    issue of material fact existed as to whether Lambert negligently represented the amount of coal
    tonnage contained within the Leases.
    On June 20, 2014, Lambert noticed its motion for summary judgment for a hearing on
    September 3, 2014. On August 26, 2014, five business days before the scheduled hearing,
    Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies propounded their first discovery requests to Lambert. On
    September 2, 2014, the day before the hearing, Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies moved for a
    continuance of the hearing based on both Lambert’s failure to respond to the discovery requests
    and the pendency of their renewed counterclaim, which they filed on August 7, 2014, without
    obtaining prior leave of court.
    The circuit court denied the request to continue the hearing on Lambert’s motion for
    summary judgment. The renewed counterclaim was dismissed because it had been filed without
    leave of court. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Lambert, ruling that
    there was no genuine issue of any material fact in the case. The circuit court ruled that Virginia
    Fuel and Justice Companies were “unable to move forward with their Constructive
    Fraud/Negligent Misrepresentation Counterclaim due to their failure to seek leave from the
    [c]ourt.” Therefore, the “pleadings, admissions, and interrogatories show that no material fact is
    in dispute and summary judgment is appropriate as a matter of law.” 3
    3
    No party objected to the use of interrogatory responses to support Lambert’s motion for
    summary judgment. See Rule 3:20 (summary judgment may be granted based on “the pleadings,
    the orders, if any, made at a pretrial conference, [and] the admissions, if any, in the
    proceedings . . . .”).
    5
    Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies appealed. We granted three assignments of error:
    1.     The trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary
    judgment.
    a.     The trial court misconstrued and/or failed to construe the meaning
    of the purchase agreement and its Exhibit A, including the royalty,
    “coal mined,” and coal tonnage provisions.
    b.     The trial court erred in finding that there were no genuine issues of
    material fact in dispute on the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim.
    c.     If the coal tonnage provision in the purchase agreement was
    ambiguous, the trial court erred in deciding the meaning of the
    agreement as a question of law, and in failing to consider evidence
    to ascertain its meaning and the parties’ intent.
    d.     No admissions or discovery responses entitled the plaintiff to
    summary judgment.
    e.     The trial court erred in denying defendants’ motion for a
    continuance of the summary judgment hearing.
    2.     The trial court erred in sustaining the plaintiff’s demurrer to the
    defendants’ breach of contract counterclaim.
    a.     The trial court erred in finding that the defendants’ breach of
    contract counterclaim sounds in tort.
    b.     The trial court erred in finding that the Purchase Agreement only
    obligated the plaintiff to convey the mining permit and mining
    leases.
    3.     The trial court erred in dismissing defendants’ affirmative defenses
    of recoupment or credit.
    II. Discussion
    A. Summary Judgment
    The first assignment of error concerns the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment to
    Lambert. “In an appeal from a circuit court’s decision to grant or deny summary judgment this
    Court reviews the application of law to undisputed facts de novo.” Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust
    6
    Co. v. Arrington, 
    290 Va. 109
    , 114, 
    772 S.E.2d 571
    , 573 (2015) (quoting St. Joe Co. v. Norfolk
    Redevelopment & Hous. Auth., 
    283 Va. 403
    , 407, 
    722 S.E.2d 622
    , 625 (2012)). Further, this
    Court reviews the circuit court’s interpretation of an agreement de novo. Pocahontas Mining
    LLC v. CNX Gas Co., 
    276 Va. 346
    , 352, 
    666 S.E.2d 527
    , 530 (2008). “The question whether
    the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law which we review de novo.”
    Robinson-Huntley v. George Washington Carver Mut. Homes Ass’n, 
    287 Va. 425
    , 429, 
    756 S.E.2d 415
    , 418 (2014) (quoting Eure v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., 
    263 Va. 624
    ,
    631, 
    561 S.E.2d 663
    , 667 (2002)). “Contract language is ambiguous when it may be understood
    in more than one way or when it refers to two or more things at the same time. However, a
    contract is not ambiguous merely because the parties disagree as to the meaning of the terms
    used.” 
    Id. (quoting Eure,
    263 Va. at 
    632, 561 S.E.2d at 668
    ).
    In reviewing a circuit court’s grant or denial of summary judgment, we “apply[] the same
    standard a trial court must adopt in reviewing a motion for summary judgment, accepting as true
    those inferences from the facts that are most favorable to the nonmoving party, unless the
    inferences are forced, strained, or contrary to reason.” Fultz v. Delhaize America, Inc., 
    278 Va. 84
    , 88, 
    677 S.E.2d 272
    , 274 (2009).
    Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies argue that the trial court erred in granting summary
    judgment because “the language of the [Agreement] and related agreements plainly contemplates
    that $2.3 million of the purchase price would be paid as royalty from coal mined under the
    [L]eases. If that coal could not be mined, then the obligation to pay royalties ceased.” Further,
    “[e]ven the minimum royalty payment [of $40,000] [was] to be paid from ‘coal mined’ under the
    [L]eases.” Alternatively, Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies contend that the Agreement is
    7
    ambiguous and, therefore, the parties should have been afforded the opportunity to introduce
    parol evidence to enable the factfinder to determine the parties’ intent.
    Lambert responds that “payment of the deferred purchase price was not tied to mining
    coal because the [p]urchase Agreement did not require [Virginia Fuel] to mine any coal.”
    Lambert observes that, pursuant to the interpretation advocated by Virginia Fuel and Justice
    Companies, if Virginia Fuel decided not to mine any coal, Lambert would not be entitled to any
    portion of the deferred purchase price. Lambert asserts that such a result would be “patently
    absurd.” Further, Lambert maintains that the term “minimum monthly royalty” means “an
    unconditional covenant or guarantee of payment regardless of the circumstances or conditions
    encountered during the mining process, the economic feasibility of continued mining, or the
    remaining quantity of mineable and merchantable coal.” In Lambert’s view, the payment of the
    deferred purchase price was tied to the minimum monthly royalty and not to the mining of coal.
    We agree with Lambert.
    Under the Agreement, Virginia Fuel purchased Lambert’s rights under the mining permit
    and Lambert’s rights as lessee under the Leases. The transaction was structured as an outright
    sale and not as a lease or sublease. In effect, Virginia Fuel purchased the right to step into
    Lambert’s position as the operator under the mining permit and as lessee under the Leases. The
    sales price for the assignments was established as $2,500,000, with $200,000 paid upon signing
    of the Agreement and the balance of $2,300,000 paid over time, but at a minimum monthly
    amount of $40,000 until paid in full. No provision of the Agreement excused Virginia Fuel’s
    payment of the minimum monthly payment if the coal available proved to be less than expected.
    The provisions of the Security Agreement make clear that Virginia Fuel was required to
    pay the deferred purchase price regardless of the amount of coal mined. The Security Agreement
    8
    was given to secure payment of “all indebtedness.” “Indebtedness” was defined as including the
    $2,300,000 deferred purchase price payable under the Agreement. The Agreement required
    payment of a “minimum monthly royalty of $40,000.” Virginia Fuel would be in default if the
    royalty due under the Agreement was not paid by the fifteenth day of the month following the
    month in which the coal was mined for the purpose of computing the royalty. Upon default,
    Lambert had the option of declaring that all of the indebtedness, including principal and interest,
    was immediately due and payable.
    Similarly, under the Guaranty, Justice Companies unconditionally and absolutely
    guaranteed “full and prompt” payment to Lambert of the “Indebtedness,” which was defined as
    including the $2,300,000 deferred purchase price under the Agreement.
    Thus, reading the Agreement, the Security Agreement, and the Guaranty together, 4 it is
    manifest that the obligation of Virginia Fuel to pay both the deferred purchase price and the
    minimum monthly royalty was not dependent on the amount of available, mineable coal.
    Virginia Fuel’s and Justice Companies’ reading of the Agreement that both the minimum
    monthly payment and the royalty of $2.00 per ton were only payable out of mineable coal creates
    an untenable result. Under that argument, if no coal was ever mined, no payment would be due
    to Lambert other than the initial $200,000 allocated to the value of the permit. There was no
    provision in the Agreement that the mining permit or the Leases would revert back to Lambert if
    Virginia Fuel never mined any coal, or mined less coal than necessary to result in payment in full
    of the deferred purchase price of $2,300,000. It is illogical to assume that Lambert would have
    4
    See Countryside Orthopaedics, P.C. v. Peyton, 
    261 Va. 142
    , 151, 
    541 S.E.2d 279
    , 284
    (2001), where we observed that “where two papers are executed at the same time or
    contemporaneously between the same parties, in reference to the same subject matter, they must
    be regarded as parts of one transaction, and receive the same construction as if their several
    provisions were in one and the same instrument.” (Citations and internal quotation marks
    omitted.) See also, e.g., Bailey v. Town of Saltville, 
    279 Va. 627
    , 633, 
    691 S.E.2d 491
    , 493
    (2010) (same) (citing cases).
    9
    sold the right to mine what it estimated to be 1.5 million tons of coal for payment of no more
    than $200,000.
    Relying on Home Creek Smokeless Coal Co. v. Combs, 
    204 Va. 561
    , 
    132 S.E.2d 399
    (1963), Virginia Fuel and Justice argue that the use of the term “royalty” in the Agreement
    imposes on Virginia Fuel a duty to mine coal. Thus, they argue, Lambert would always be paid
    something until the mine was exhausted. Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies misread Home
    Creek Smokeless Coal. In that case, we opined that:
    The general rule of interpretation, and the one consonant with reason, is that
    where the only consideration for a mining lease is the royalty on coal actually
    mined, the lessee must operate with reasonable diligence, and failing in this, must
    surrender the property.
    
    Id. at 571,
    132 S.E.2d at 406. In that case, as in the present case, “the royalty on coal actually
    mined was not the only consideration. There was [also] a substantial minimum royalty.” 
    Id. at 571-72,
    132 S.E.2d at 406. Under that circumstance, we held, the coal lease was not forfeited by
    the lessor’s failure to mine as long as the minimum royalty payments were made. 
    Id. at 572,
    132
    S.E.2d at 407. Thus, under the holding of Home Creek Smokeless Coal, Virginia Fuel had no
    implied duty to mine coal because the Agreement required minimum monthly royalty payments.
    Lambert advances the only reading of the Agreement that is not strained, illogical, or
    contrary to reason. Given that there was no obligation of Virginia Fuel to mine any coal, the
    amount of $40,000 represented the minimum payment due to Lambert each month regardless of
    whether Virginia Fuel mined any coal. If Virginia Fuel elected to mine coal, it might owe more
    than $40,000 if the coal mined exceeded 20,000 tons. In that event, Virginia Fuel would be
    required to pay $2.00 for every ton mined over 20,000 tons. The provision of the Security
    Agreement that payment was due on the fifteenth day of the month “following the month in
    which the mineral is mined for purposes of computing the royalty” did not mean that if no coal
    10
    was mined, no payment was due. Instead, that provision simply established that the amount due
    — either $40,000 or more — would be computed based on operations during the calendar
    month, with payment due on the fifteenth of the next month. If no coal was mined in a given
    month, or if the amount of coal mined was 20,000 tons or less, the minimum payment would be
    due. If more than 20,000 tons was mined in the month, the royalty would be calculated and
    payment due by the fifteenth of the next month. Payments were due until Lambert received the
    full $2,300,000 deferred purchase price. 5
    Our conclusion that Virginia Fuel was not excused from payment of the deferred
    purchase price because the coal present was less than it expected is supported by case law from
    other jurisdictions. In Timlin v. Brown, 
    28 A. 236
    (Pa. 1893), two lessees entered into a lease to
    mine coal on the plaintiff’s land for a period of ten years. The lessees agreed to mine a minimum
    of 10,000 bushels a year and pay plaintiff a royalty of one half cent per bushel. If they mined
    less than 10,000 bushels, the lessees agreed to pay the minimum royalty of $50 per year. 
    Id. at 237.
    After seven years, the lessees ceased operations because the coal seam had been exhausted.
    The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that they were obligated to pay the plaintiff landowner
    $50 a year for the remaining term of the lease, reasoning that:
    [t]here is nothing in the contract indicating any intention to modify or relieve the
    defendants from their absolute obligation to pay on the contingencies of the mine
    proving unprofitable, or of exhaustion of the coal before the end of the term, . . .
    5
    The recital in the Guaranty that “pursuant to the Agreement, [Lambert] extends credit to
    [Virginia Fuel] to be repaid by the mining of coal under DMLR Permit 1101673 . . .” does not
    change our analysis. Recitals in a contract are not binding on the parties. See, e.g., Whetstone
    Candy Co. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 
    351 F.3d 1067
    , 1074 (11th Cir. 2003) (opining that “‘whereas’
    clauses are not binding when the contract is otherwise unambiguous”) (citation omitted), People
    v. Forsyth, 
    292 P.3d 1248
    , 1258, n. 97 (Colo. 2012) (noting that recitals are not binding
    obligations unless referred to in the operative provisions of the contract). Instead, recitals are
    merely explanations of “the reasons for entering into [the contract] or the background of the
    transaction . . . .” Black’s Law Dictionary 1462 (10th ed. 2014).
    11
    [The lessees did] not protect [themselves] from buying too dear, by stipulating for
    a deduction should the quantity fall short of 100,000 [bushels in ten years].
    
    Id. Similarly, in
    National Coal Co. v. Overholt, 
    94 S.E. 735
    (W. Va. 1917), a coal company
    entered into a coal lease with the landowners for a period of ten years. A royalty was payable
    equal to ten cents for every ton of “run of mine coal” mined from the leased property. 
    Id. at 736.
    The lessee agreed to pay an annual minimum royalty of $2,500 in the first year and $3,000 for
    the remaining years of the lease. 
    Id. Prior to
    the expiration of the lease term, the coal company
    ceased mining coal on the leased property, having determined that the amount of “merchantable
    and obtainable coal” was exhausted. 
    Id. at 737.
    The Supreme Court of West Virginia held that
    the lessee was obligated to pay the minimum royalty of $3,000 per annum for the entire term,
    regardless of the quantity of coal mined. The court reasoned:
    The English and many American decisions hold that when in a mining lease the
    parties contract with reference to a mineral known to exist, but the quantity is
    unknown, and incapable of certain ascertainment, and the lessee covenants to
    mine and bring forth a minimum quantity of the product annually, or at other
    intervals, and to pay a minimum royalty therefor whether mined or not, the
    contract amounts to a sale of the mineral in the land, and that the lessee is bound
    to pay the minimum price, whether mined or not, and whether it exists or not.
    
    Id. at 738
    (citing Timlin and collecting cases).
    In Babcock Coal & Coke Co. v. Brackens Creek Coal Land Co., 
    37 S.E.2d 519
    (W. Va.
    1946), the plaintiff coal company leased from the defendant in 1920 “all coal” in a described
    seam underlying a 368-acre tract of land for a period of thirty years. 
    Id. at 520.
    The lessee
    agreed to pay a royalty of ten cents for every ton of coal mined. The lessee further agreed that
    beginning in 1922 it would pay a “minimum rent or royalty” of $3,000 per year. 
    Id. In 1944,
    the
    lessee notified the landowner that it was cancelling the lease, as there no longer remained coal of
    sufficient quality or quantity to be profitably mined. 
    Id. at 521.
    The lessee sued to cancel the
    12
    lease. The Supreme Court of West Virginia held that the lessee was not entitled to rescission of
    the lease. The court observed:
    In addition to the stipulation relative to payment of royalty for minerals actually
    mined, many leases contain a provision that minimum royalty shall be paid
    regardless of whether coal is actually mined. These provisions are classified:
    (1) those requiring payment of minimum royalty regardless of the amount of
    minerals mined, and (2) those requiring that a stipulated amount of minerals shall
    be mined. If the stipulation is of the first class a lessee is liable for the payment of
    minimum royalty although no minerals are or could be mined; if of the second
    class and the lessee did not assume the risk of exhaustion of the minerals, his
    obligation to pay the minimum royalty is discharged if the minerals do not exist.
    
    Id. at 522
    (citations omitted). The court found that the provision for minimum royalties
    “clearly shows that . . . [the lessee] assumed the risk of the existence of coal to be mined
    from [the lessor’s] land sufficient in quantity to aggregate the total minimum royalties for
    the term of the lease.” 
    Id. at 523.
    Although Timlin, National Coal, and Babcock Coal involved the rights and duties
    of lessors and lessees under coal mining leases, rather than under an asset sale agreement
    such as the Agreement in this case, we are persuaded by their reasoning. Whether under
    a lease or an asset purchase agreement, when the payment due to the lessor or landowner
    is expressed as a minimum monthly royalty, the party mining the mineral is not excused
    from payment if the mineral is of insufficient quantity to be profitably mined in quantities
    adequate to pay the royalties due. See generally Robert Tucker Donley, The Law of
    Coal, Oil & Gas in West Virginia & Virginia § 120 (1951) (distinguishing minimum
    royalty payments from minimum tonnage requirements and noting that, if the agreement
    contains minimum tonnage requirements, the obligor may be excused from payment
    under a defense of impossibility of performance when the mine is depleted).
    13
    Summarizing, we hold that the circuit court did not err when it granted summary
    judgment to Lambert on its complaint. In that Virginia Fuel was not obligated to mine any coal
    and agreed to pay a monthly minimum royalty, Virginia Fuel was not excused from paying the
    full amount of the deferred purchase price because it found less mineable coal on the Lambert
    Land Lease than it expected. Virginia Fuel admitted that it paid only $1,298,293.06 of the
    deferred purchase price of $2,300,000, leaving a balance due of $1,001,706.94. Justice
    Companies admitted that it had guaranteed payment in full of the deferred purchase price. The
    circuit court correctly concluded that there was no material fact in dispute and that summary
    judgment in favor of Lambert was appropriate.
    B. Denial of Continuance
    As a subpart of the first assignment of error, Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies
    contend that the trial court erred in denying their request to continue the hearing on Lambert’s
    motion for summary judgment.
    The decision to grant a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of
    the circuit court and must be considered in view of the circumstances unique to
    each case. The circuit court’s ruling on a motion for a continuance will be
    rejected on appeal only upon a showing of abuse of discretion and resulting
    prejudice to the movant.
    Haugen v. Shenandoah Valley Dept. of Soc. Servs., 
    274 Va. 27
    , 34, 
    645 S.E.2d 261
    , 265
    (2007) (emphasis in original).
    Applying that standard to the facts of this case, we hold that the circuit court did
    not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance request where the case had been
    pending for over a year, the hearing on the motion for summary judgment had been
    scheduled more than 10 weeks in advance, and the claimed grounds for the continuance
    had been self-created by Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies only five business days
    14
    before the scheduled hearing when they filed for the first time discovery requests and
    then objected that Lambert had not responded to the discovery – even though responses
    were not yet due.
    C. Demurrer to the Counterclaim
    The second assignment of error concerns the circuit court’s sustaining Lambert’s
    demurrer to Count I of Virginia Fuel’s and Justice Companies’ original counterclaim alleging
    breach of contract. “A trial court’s decision sustaining a demurrer presents a question of law
    which we review de novo.” Desetti v. Chester, 
    290 Va. 50
    , 56, 
    772 S.E.2d 907
    , 909 (2015)
    (quoting Harris v. Kreutzer, 
    271 Va. 188
    , 195, 
    624 S.E.2d 24
    , 28 (2006)). “A demurrer accepts
    as true all facts properly pled, as well as reasonable inferences from those facts.” 
    Id. (quoting Steward
    v. Holland Family Props., LLC, 
    284 Va. 282
    , 286, 
    726 S.E.2d 251
    , 253 (2012)).
    The counterclaim alleged that, under the Agreement, Lambert represented to Virginia
    Fuel that the Lambert Land Lease was “made up of 1.1 million tons of coal” and that the Alpha
    Lease was “made up of approximately 400,000 tons [of coal].” Virginia Fuel and Justice
    Companies further alleged that the representations as to the amount of coal on the Leases were
    material terms of the Agreement, and that Virginia Fuel would not have entered into the
    Agreement but for those representations.
    The counterclaim alleged that the amount of coal on the Lambert Land Lease was
    actually 869,000 tons. 6 Accordingly, Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies alleged that Lambert
    had breached the Agreement “by failing to deliver the amount of coal tonnage it represented in
    the Agreement.” They sought damages in the amount of $359,000, representing the difference in
    6
    All of the claimed damages in the counterclaim arise from the alleged shortfall in the
    amount of coal represented to be on the Lambert Land Lease. Although the Alpha Lease is
    mentioned in the counterclaim, there is no allegation in the counterclaim that Lambert breached
    the Agreement because the amount of coal located on the Alpha Lease proved to be less than the
    “approx. 400,000 tons” as stated in the Agreement.
    15
    “pro rata coal tonnage value” represented to be present on the Lambert Land Lease and the
    amount of mineable coal actually present.
    Lambert filed a demurrer to the breach of contract count of the counterclaim. Lambert
    alleged that, pursuant to the Agreement, Lambert gave Virginia Fuel “access to the records
    associated with the mining operations as well [as] an opportunity ‘to conduct a physical
    investigation of [Lambert’s] facilities and properties’ in order to determine among other things
    the amount of coal on the property.” Therefore, “[g]iven the opportunity to inspect, Virginia
    Fuel, as a matter of law, took the property, business and assets as is.” No written response by
    Virginia Fuel or Justice Companies to Lambert’s demurrer to the counterclaim is included in the
    record.
    After a hearing on the demurrer, the circuit court ruled that the counterclaim “as a matter
    of law fails to state a claim for breach of contract and . . . therefore [Lambert’s] [d]emurrer is
    well taken.” Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies were granted leave to amend their breach of
    contract claim. They elected, however, not to amend the counterclaim and stood on their original
    counterclaim.
    In their “Joint Written Statement of Facts and Other Incidents of the Case Pursuant to
    Rule 5:11,” the parties state that, in sustaining Lambert’s demurrer to the breach of contract
    claim in the counterclaim, the circuit court “ruled from the bench that [the] [c]ounterclaim
    sounded in tort not contract, that [Lambert] was contractually obligated to convey the mining
    permit and assign the [Leases], which it did, and that [Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies]
    failed to state a claim for breach of contract.”
    Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies argue that the circuit court erred in ruling that the
    breach of contract claim sounded in tort. We need not decide whether the circuit court erred in
    16
    stating from the bench that the counterclaim sounded in tort and not in contract. “[I]t is
    fundamental that ‘a court of record speaks only through its written orders.’” Upper Occoquan
    Sewage Auth. v. Blake Constr. Co., 
    266 Va. 582
    , 588, 
    587 S.E.2d 721
    , 724 (2003) (quoting Hill
    v. Hill, 
    227 Va. 569
    , 578, 
    318 S.E.2d 292
    , 297 (1984)). The circuit court’s written order in this
    case states nothing about whether the counterclaim sounded in contract or tort. Instead, the
    written order states that the demurrer was sustained with leave to amend because “the [c]ourt
    [finds] that the . . . [c]ounterclaim as a matter of law fails to state a claim for breach of contract
    and therefore [the] [d]emurrer is well taken.” Implicit in the circuit court’s sustaining the
    demurrer to the counterclaim was its finding that, as a matter of law, Lambert did not represent
    and warrant that 1.1 million tons of mineable coal would be located on the Lambert Land Lease,
    which was the sole breach of contract alleged in the counterclaim.
    On appeal, Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies argue that Lambert breached the
    Agreement “by failing to deliver the amount of mineable coal it represented in the Agreement.”
    Lambert responds that the tonnage references on Exhibit “A” to the Agreement were understood
    to be estimates only and not warranties as to the amount of available coal. We agree with
    Lambert.
    The Agreement provided that the assets of Lambert to be sold to Virginia Fuel pursuant
    to the Agreement included “certain mining leases as set out in attached Exhibit ‘A’.” With
    respect to the Lambert Land Lease, Exhibit “A” stated:
    Coal Leases will be assigned to [Virginia Fuel]. Those current leases include the
    Lambert Land, LLC (“LL”) coal-only and Heartwood Forestland (HFL) surface
    over the LL coal which the royalty together is from 8-10% on 1.1 million
    tons . . . .
    The reference to “1.1 million tons” in Exhibit “A” with regards to the Lambert Land
    Lease was insufficient as a matter of law to create a representation and warranty by Lambert that
    17
    there were, in fact, 1.1 million tons of coal on the Lambert Land Lease. It is clear from the
    Agreement that the parties intended to enter into separate “Assignment and Assumption
    Agreements, which shall contain customary provisions, conditions, representations, warranties,
    and terms that are mutually agreeable to the parties.” No such agreements are part of the record.
    We agree with Lambert, that Exhibit “A” served merely to identify the assets subject to
    the sale, and that the reference to “8-10% on 1.1 million tons” was an expression of estimated
    royalty percentages payable to owners of the coal in addition to the payments due to Lambert
    under the Agreement, and not a representation or warranty that 1.1 million tons of coal were on
    the Lambert Land Lease. 7
    Again, our conclusion is supported by case law from West Virginia. In National Coal
    Co. v. Overholt, the lessee alleged that the lessors represented that “there were in fact 53.14 acres
    of coal in said boundary of land, and that 345,000 tons of coal could be mined and obtained
    therefrom 
    .” 94 S.E. at 737
    . The Supreme Court of West Virginia held that:
    [t]he alleged representation or assurances of the [lessors] that there were at least
    310,000 or 345,000 tons of coal in the mine, from the very nature of the subject
    matter of the contract could have been but the expression of an opinion that that
    quantity of coal could be obtained from the mine. No one in advance of the actual
    mining and removal of coal could do other than estimate the amount.
    
    Id. at 738
    -39. 8
    In sum, we agree with Lambert that nowhere in the Agreement is there a clear, absolute
    or affirmative promise, guarantee, or warranty of a certain quantity of mineable or merchantable
    7
    The record does not include a copy of either the Lambert Land Lease or the Alpha
    Lease.
    8
    In quoting this passage from National Coal, we do not suggest that there can never be an
    enforceable representation or warranty as to the amount of a yet-to-be-mined mineral. Such an
    enforceable representation or warranty, however, would have to be more definite than the bare
    recitation in this case that the Lambert Land Lease included a “royalty . . . from 8-10% on 1.1
    million tons.”
    18
    coal. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not err in sustaining Lambert’s demurrer to
    the breach of contract count of Virginia Fuel’s and Justice Companies’ counterclaim.
    D. Dismissal of Recoupment Defense
    The third assignment of error concerns the circuit court’s dismissal of Virginia Fuel’s and
    Justice Companies’ defense of recoupment. 9 The trial court did not expressly dismiss that
    defense. Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies argue that the trial court “implicitly rejected [this
    defense] by granting Lambert summary judgment and dismissing the case.” Therefore, we apply
    the same de novo standard of review that we applied in deciding the issue of whether summary
    judgment was properly awarded to Lambert. See Deutsche 
    Bank, 290 Va. at 114
    , 772 S.E.2d at
    573.
    “Recoupment” has been defined as “the right of the defendant to cut down or diminish
    the claim of the plaintiff in consequence of [the plaintiff’s] failure to comply with some
    provision of the contract sought to be enforced, or because [the plaintiff] has violated some duty
    imposed upon him by law in the making or performance of that contract.” Burks Pleading and
    Practice § 247, at 438 (4th ed. 1952). See Odessky v. Monterey Wine Co., 
    188 Va. 184
    , 189, 
    49 S.E.2d 330
    , 332 (1948); Dexter-Portland Cement Co. v. Acme Supply Co., 
    147 Va. 758
    , 766-67,
    
    133 S.E. 788
    , 790 (1926). 10 See also Black’s Law Dictionary 1466 (10th ed. 2014) (defining
    9
    In their answer and grounds of defense, Virginia Fuel and Justice Companies asserted
    the affirmative defense of “credit and/or offset.” The parties have referred to this defense
    variously as one of “credit,” “offset,” or “recoupment.” The Court will refer to the defense as
    “recoupment.”
    10
    A plea of recoupment may be made pursuant to Code § 8.01-422, and we have held
    that it is not a counterclaim, for example, for purposes of the nonsuit statute. See Bremer v.
    Doctor's Bldg. P’ship, 
    251 Va. 74
    , 80, 
    465 S.E.2d 787
    , 790 (1996); Code § 8.01-422 (statutory
    pleas such as recoupment are allowed in contract actions “against the obligation of the
    contract”).
    19
    recoupment as “[t]he right of a defendant to have the plaintiff’s claim reduced or eliminated
    because of the plaintiff’s breach of contract or duty in the same transaction”).
    As we have stated above, Lambert did not breach any provision of the Agreement, nor
    did Lambert breach any duty it had to Virginia Fuel or Justice Companies in the same
    transaction. Therefore, we hold that the circuit court did not err in implicitly dismissing the
    defense of recoupment when it granted summary judgment to Lambert.
    III. Conclusion
    For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the circuit court granting
    summary judgment to Lambert on its complaint, sustaining Lambert’s demurrer to the
    counterclaim, and dismissing the defense of recoupment.
    Affirmed.
    20