Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Francis and Deborah Maddock appealed a district court judgment denying their request for permanent injunctive relief. Larry and Jane Andersen operated a farm approximately three miles from the Maddocks' property. In the 1960s, a drainage ditch was built by Larry Andersen's father to allow water to drain into a slough located on the Andersens' property. The Maddocks alleged the Andersens' ditch now caused water to unnaturally drain onto their property, and they sought a permanent injunction stopping the flow of water from the ditch onto their land. At trial, both the Maddocks and the Andersens presented their own expert witness, each of whom testified to the flow of water from the slough and various other areas and to the environmental makeup of pooling water. The district court concluded the Maddocks failed to show the water on their property came primarily from the Andersens' drain and the Maddocks failed to identify or investigate three other possible locations from which water might flow onto their land. The district court also concluded it is necessary for the drainage ditch to remain open to protect the Andersens' home and the Andersens took reasonable care to avoid unnecessary damage to the Maddocks' land. The Maddocks argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the district court should have found the Andersens were unreasonably draining their land. Because the district court's finding the Andersens complied with the reasonable use rule was not clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court concluded the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction sought by the Maddocks. View "Maddock v. Andersen" on Justia Law

Loren Larson, Kathryn Lervick, and Renee Larson appealed judgment dismissing their action to quiet title to certain mineral interests and finding the heirs of Hans Norheim and Thelma Larson Norheim were the current owners of the mineral interests. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not clearly err in finding the Norheim heirs' statement of claim was sufficient to prevent the lapse of the mineral interests. View "Larson v. Norheim" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants Wade Gilstad, individually and as trustee of an irrevocable trust, Charles Gilstad, and Ruth Smith ("Gilstads") appealed a district court judgment quieting title in certain mineral interests in Patricia Christeson. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Cour affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in concluding the Gilstads did not acquire title to the disputed mineral interests under the abandoned mineral statutes. View "Estate of Christeson v. Gilstad" on Justia Law

Joan Eldridge appealed a district court judgment finding Lloyd Lester, Rex Niles, and Kyle Dragseth each owned a 1/4 interest in a well on Eldridge's property and an easement over the land affected by pipelines from the well to each of their houses. Finding no error in the district court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Niles v. Eldridge" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Dennis and Evangeline Bakken appealed a judgment declaring the Bakkens no longer had an option to repurchase Pierce County property Paul and Evangeline Bakken sold to John and Bernadine Duchscher in 1991, and which the Duchschers later transferred to John Duchscher, Jr., and Ann Duchscher. Upon review of the trial court record and applicable statutory and case law authority, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court erred as a matter of law in ruling that the Bakkens' option to repurchase the property had expired. View "Bakken v. Duchscher" on Justia Law

SM Energy Company appealed a summary judgment declaring that A.G. Golden and other plaintiffs were entitled to a four percent overriding royalty interest in leases and lands covered by a 1970 letter agreement and ordering SM to pay amounts due to Golden and the other plaintiffs for these interests, and an order denying SM's motion to amend or for relief from the judgment. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in ruling as a matter of law that SM through its predecessors in interest, expressly assumed an "area of mutual interest" clause in the 1970 letter agreement and in expanding the judgment to include unpled and unlitigated properties within the area of mutual interest. Furthermore, the Court concluded the court correctly ruled as a matter of law that SM owed Golden and the other plaintiffs retroactive royalty payments on production from a certain well located on the subject property. View "Golden v. SM Energy Company" on Justia Law

Colleen Weflen, Marleen Weflen, Sharon Kruse, Catherine Harris, Norris Weflen, Windsor Bakken, LLC, Gulfport Energy Corp. and EOG Resources, Inc., appealed a district court judgment vacating a previous order granting Weflens' motion for summary judgment, granting Patricia Capps' motion for summary judgment and finding that the Weflens had no claim to a one-half mineral interest reserved by Ruth Nelson in 1975. Nelson conveyed real property in Mountrail County, to Olav and Rose Weflen, reserving to herself one-half of the minerals in the property. In 1979, Nelson executed a mineral deed conveying her mineral interest to Patricia Capps and Terrel Anderson. Nelson's deed was not recorded until 2009. Colleen Weflen, Marleen Weflen, Sharon Kruse, Catherine Harris and Norris Weflen were the current surface owners of the real property. In December 2005 and January 2006, the Weflens published a Notice of Lapse of Mineral Interest in the Mountrail County Promoter for three consecutive weeks. The notice of lapse was subsequently mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, with restricted delivery to the two last known addresses of Nelson. The addresses were obtained from the 1975 warranty deed from Nelson to Olav and Rose Weflen and from an oil and gas lease dated 1973. The two notices sent by mail were returned undelivered. Nelson died in 1983. No Statement of Claim of Mineral Interest was filed by or on behalf of Nelson within sixty days after the first publication of the notice of lapse. Capps filed a statement of claim in2008. Capps brought suit to quiet title in the mineral interest in 2009. The district court granted Weflens' motion for summary judgment, quieting title of the disputed minerals in the Weflens. Subsequently, Gerald Wools, Penny Brink, Michael Lee, Melissa Kellor and Gwen Hassan ("Hassans") were joined as plaintiffs and then designated as defendants. Hassans claimed an interest to the minerals as heirs of Nelson. Weflens moved for summary judgment against Hassans. Capps requested the district court deny the motion and reconsider its prior order quieting title in Weflens. Upon reconsideration, the district court vacated its prior order granting Weflens' motion for summary judgment, granted Capps' motion for reconsideration and found as a matter of law Weflens had no claim to the one-half mineral interest. The district court entered a final judgment adjudicating fewer than all of the claims of the parties pursuant to N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b), concluding, "Because the ancillary claims in this case depend[ed] upon final resolution of the dormant minerals dispute, the Court agrees there is no just reason to delay entry of judgment on the main claim." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court inappropriately certified the summary judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b), and the court abused its discretion in directing entry of a final judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Capps v. Weflen" on Justia Law

William and Carla Trotter and Kevin and Cheryl Buehner appealed a judgment which declared "Trotter Road" a public road, and that awarded Ralph and Patricia Howard damages. Since 1984, the Howards have used Trotter Road to access their farmland. In 1986 or 1987, Gene Buehner built a dam along Trotter Road because the road had frequently been washed away by high water traveling through the ravine. In the fall of 2009, the road had become increasingly narrow due to high water. The width of the road made it impossible for the Howards to access their farmland with heavy farm equipment, which had previously not been a problem. Also in the fall of 2009, the Trotters erected steel poles across Trotter Road further preventing the Howards from accessing their farmland. In 2011, the Howards sued the Trotters and Buehners seeking injunctive relief and money damages. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not clearly err in finding Trotter Road was a public road, and in awarding the Howards damages. View "Howard v. Trotter" on Justia Law

In an action stemming from a failed sale of land from Greg and Shelly Schwab to Raymond Zajac, Zajac appealed the judgment entered after a jury awarded the Schwabs $4,000 on their slander of title claim against Zajac, after the district court ordered disbursement of Zajac's payment of $10,000 in earnest money to the Schwabs and after the court ordered Zajac to execute a document disclaiming any interest in the Schwabs' land. Zajac argued the district court erred in not admitting evidence at trial involving the Schwabs' attempt to cure a waterfowl easement on the land as an accommodation to complete the transaction, the court erred in not admitting evidence at trial of the present value of the Schwabs' land and denying him due process and a fair trial by taking over Zajac's self-represented case. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and remanded the case to the district court to determine the Schwabs' attorney fees on appeal for their slander of title claim. View "Schwab v. Zajac" on Justia Law

Ronald Rowland appealed the grant of summary judgment that declared that 15 deeds executed in the 1950s covering certain Bowman County property conveyed royalty interests rather than mineral interests, and an order denying his motion to vacate the judgment. Because the deeds were ambiguous and reasonable differences of opinion existed as to the inferences drawn about the grantor's intent from the language of the deeds and the extrinsic evidence presented, the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hamilton v. Woll" on Justia Law