Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Jeffrey Wotzka was a guest at the Radisson Hotel. While taking a shower, he slipped and fell out of the shower. Wotzka sued the Hotel, claiming the Hotel maintained a dangerous condition on its premises by failing to equip the shower with a non-skid strip, a bathmat, or a handrail at the shower level. The Hotel moved for summary judgment, arguing it was under no duty to provide a non-skid strip, a bathmat, or a handrail in its showers. The Hotel also argued it had no duty to warn of the open and obvious dangers of a slippery shower. Wotzka appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Hotel. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court misapplied the law of this case, and erroneously granted summary judgment because Wotzka raised genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Radisson Hotel should have anticipated harm despite the obvious or known nature of the danger and failed to maintain the property in a reasonably safe manner. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Wotzka v. Minndakota Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

EOG Resources, Inc. appealed a district court judgment that granted Lario Oil & Gas Co.'s motion for summary judgment and quieted title of an oil and gas leasehold estate in Lario's favor. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court erred by deciding EOG did not lease the rights to the oil and gas interests. View "Lario Oil & Gas Co. v. EOG Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

Randy Kyllo, individually and as a partner of Tri-K Farms, appealed a district court order that denied his claim against Shawn Knudson for usurpation of a partnership opportunity. In 1994, Kyllo and Shawn Knudson formed a general partnership, Tri-K Farms. Knudson and Kyllo did not execute a written partnership agreement, but they operated Tri-K Farms as equals. One of the parcels of land Tri-K Farms leased, Knudson separately purchased by contract for deed using some of the partnership's funds. In March 2006, Knudson and Kyllo met with an attorney about dissolving the partnership. The attorney prepared a written partnership dissolution agreement to dissolve the partnership and distribute the partnership assets, but neither party signed. A dispute arose over the sale of the purchased parcel, ultimately ending in a judgment against Kyllo. The district court found Kyllo failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) Knudson improperly usurped a partnership opportunity because the partnership never intended to purchase the property; (2) owning the land was not within the scope of the partnership's business; (3) the partnership was allowed to continue to farm the land after the sale; (4) and the income from the lease went to the partnership. Finding that the district court's decision was not clearly erroneous, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Knudson v. Kyllo" on Justia Law

Northern Oil & Gas, Inc. appealed a judgment ordering reformation of an oil and gas lease and quieting title to the oil and gas leasehold estate in Murex Petroleum Corporation, John H. Holt, LBK Sales & Service, Inc., Racer Oil & Gas, LC, and Double L, LLC. In 2007, a landman working for Morris Creighton signed an oil and gas lease with the original mineral holder. The lease was recorded, but a month later, a typographical error was discovered in the lease’s property description. Six months later, Creighton assigned his interest in the lease, with an exception of an overriding royalty interest, to Antares Exploration Fund, L.P. Antares then assigned its interest in the Creighton lease to Northern. Northern brought an action to quiet title against Creighton and Murex to determine rights of the parties to the oil and gas leasehold estate. Murex filed a third-party complaint against the original mineral rights holders, a cross-claim against Creighton, and a counterclaim against Northern. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that Creighton was not a good faith purchaser and the Court held that there was a question of fact whether Creighton had constructive notice when he acquired rights under the lease. The Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Northern Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Creighton" on Justia Law

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