Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

James Behrens appealed orders granting a petition for appraisal of a homestead, directing the sale of the homestead, and confirming the sale. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court misapplied the law in granting the petition for an appraisal. Therefore, the Court reversed the orders and remanded for further proceedings. View "Malloy, et al. v. Behrens" on Justia Law

Jeanne and Nevin Tergesen appealed a judgment dismissing their complaint and awarding Nelson Homes, Inc. damages for its breach of contract counterclaim. The Tergesens argued the district court erred in dismissing their rescission and breach of contract claims, and the court erroneously found the Tergesens breached the contract. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in dismissing the Tergesens’ claims or finding the Tergesens breached the contract, but the court did err in calculating the amount of prejudgment interest on Nelson Homes’ damages. View "Tergesen, et al. v. Nelson Homes" on Justia Law

Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation (“Enerplus”) appealed an amended judgment and adverse summary judgment orders which held it liable for suspending royalty payments to Meyer Family Mineral Trust, Joann Deryce Struthers Trust, and Steven J. Reed Living Trust (collectively, “Trust Defendants”). Victor Christensen owned land in Dunn County, North Dakota, including an area referred to as the “W1/2.” In 1952, he deeded a 5/128 royalty interest1 to Henry Roquette for all of the oil and gas produced from the W1/2 (“Roquette Deed”). Thereafter, Victor Christensen transferred his remaining interest in the W1/2 to his wife, Mildred Christensen. In 1957, Mildred Christensen deeded the W1/2 to Joe Reed and Deryce Reed, reserving a 4/5 mineral interest, and thereby conveying a 1/5 mineral interest to the Reeds. In 1968, Henry Roquette conveyed the 5/128 royalty interest to Mildred Christensen. The Vic Christensen Mineral Trust (“VCMT”) now owns the 4/5 mineral interest in the W1/2 that was formerly owned by Mildred Christensen. The Trust Defendants collectively owned the 1/5 mineral interest previously conveyed to the Reeds. Enerplus operated wells within the W1/2. A title examiner found a discrepancy with the land acreage in the Roquette Deed, which affected the size of the royalty interest. In October 2017, Enerplus informed VCMT and the Trust Defendants of these issues, required they enter into a stipulation clarifying their ownership interests, and suspended royalty payments to VCMT and the Trust Defendants. In 2019, VCMT sued the Trust Defendants to quiet title, alleging it owned the royalty interest on the Trust Defendants’ 1/5 mineral interest in the W1/2, and the royalty interest was larger than 5/128 based on the Roquette Deed. The Trust Defendants counterclaimed, alleging their 1/5 mineral interest had no royalty burden. VCMT and the Trust Defendants then stipulated to their interests with VCMT agreeing to forgo any rights to the royalty interest. Enerplus then paid VCMT and the Trust Defendants their suspended royalty payments. The Trust Defendants sought statutory interest from Enerplus for suspending their royalty payments. After cross-motions, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Trust Defendants and against Enerplus. Enerplus argued it was justified in suspending payments under N.D.C.C. 47-16-39.1, which allowed for suspending payments in the event of a dispute of title. To this, the North Dakota Supreme Court agreed and revered the district court's orders. View "Vic Christensen Mineral Trust v. Enerplus Resources Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Eugene Taszarek, Marlys Taszarek, Trina Schilling, Steven Taszarek, and Michael Taszarek (“Taszareks”) appealed a judgment finding Lakeview Excavating, Inc., was not the alter ego of Brian Welken. Welken was Lakeview Excavating’s president and sole shareholder. While working on certain county projects, Lakeview Excavating’s employees took fieldstones from a nearby property owned by the Taszareks to use for the roads. The Taszareks sued Lakeview Excavating and Welken for intentional trespass, conversion of property, and unjust enrichment. The claims of trespass and conversion were tried to a jury. The jury returned a verdict in the Taszareks’ favor, finding Lakeview Excavating was the alter ego of Welken and holding both parties liable for damages. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding the district court inadequately instructed the jury on the alter ego doctrine. After a bench trial, the district court found Lakeview Excavating was the alter ego of Welken and ordered the Taszareks could recover damages from either Welken or Lakeview Excavating. The Supreme Court reversed again, concluding the court’s findings relating to piercing Lakeview Excavating’s corporate veil were inadequate to permit appellate review. On remand, the court held an evidentiary hearing and found Lakeview Excavating was not the alter ego of Welken. The Taszareks argue the district court exceeded the scope of remand by holding an evidentiary hearing instead of specifying findings of fact based on evidence already in the record. Finding no reversible error in last of the district court's alter ego findings, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Taszarek, et al. v. Lakeview Excavating, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Galvanizers, Inc., and K and K Construction and Repair, Inc., appealed the dismissal of their action against Paul Kautzman seeking to quiet title to real property. Plaintiffs argued the district court erred in dismissing their quiet title action and failed to make sufficient findings to understand the evidentiary and theoretical basis for its decision. After review of the trial court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court’s findings were sufficient to support its decision dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint. View "Galvanizers, et al. v. Kautzman, et al." on Justia Law

Steve and Russell Hartman, as personal representatives of the estate of Ray Hartman (the “Estate”), appealed an amended judgment entered after a bench trial. The Estate argued Ray lacked the capacity to contract, no valid contract for the sale of his farmstead and farmland existed, Trent Grager owed rent for the 2017 farming season, and Ray did not gift a tractor to Grager. Grager cross-appealed, arguing he was entitled to compensation for the Estate’s wrongful occupation of the farm. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part, concluding the district court did not err in finding Ray was capable of contracting, the 2016 agreement was a valid contract for the sale of the farmstead and farmland, Grager had no obligation to pay rent in 2017, and the tractor was gifted. The Supreme Court reversed in part, concluding the 2017 document did not supplement or alter the terms of the 2016 agreement, and Grager was entitled to compensation for the Estate’s wrongful occupation of the farm. The case was remanded for the court to determine Grager’s damages for the Estate’s wrongful occupation. View "Hartman, et al. v. Grager" on Justia Law

Edwin Schulz appealed a judgment following a bench trial on the damages to his barn, pole barn and shed. Schulz sued Adam Helmers for negligence and breach of contract following a fire that destroyed the barn, pole barn and shed. At the time of the fire, Schulz was leasing the farmstead to Helmers, including the three buildings. He argued the district court applied the wrong measure of damages in his breach of contract claim against Helmers. The district court concluded N.D.C.C. 32-03-09.1 applied to the breach of contract claim, which provided the measure of damages for an injury to property not arising from contract was the diminution of value. The North Dakota Supreme Court concurred with the district court's finding and affirmed the judgment. View "Schulz v. Helmers" on Justia Law

Daniel and Debra Bearce appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Yellowstone Energy Development, LLC. In June 2006, representatives of a business entity that would eventually become Yellowstone went to the home of Daniel and Debra Bearce seeking to purchase 170 acres of land owned by the Bearces. Yellowstone successfully secured an exclusive option to purchase the land. In 2008, Yellowstone exercised its option to purchase the land, and the parties entered into a contract for deed. In 2009, Yellowstone and the Bearces modified the contract for deed to alter some of the payment terms. Both the original contract for deed and the 2009 modified contract for deed included the following term providing for the payment of a portion of the purchase price with “shares” of a contemplated ethanol plant. Yellowstone subsequently abandoned its plan to build an ethanol plant on the Bearces’ land. Yellowstone then negotiated a long-term lease with a third party to build an oil train loading facility on the Bearces’ land. In July 2010, Yellowstone sent a letter to the Bearces advising them $100,000 in “value” would be issued despite Yellowstone’s abandonment of the plan to build an ethanol plant. In December 2011, the Yellowstone Board of Directors approved a multiplier of three units per $1 invested for individuals who had provided initial cash investment in Yellowstone. The Bearces’ interest in Yellowstone was not given the 3:1 multiplier. Units representing ownership interest in Yellowstone were allocated and placed on a ledger sometime after December 4, 2012. After receiving a “unit ledger” indicating their interest in Yellowstone would not receive the 3:1 multiplier, the Bearces objected. Despite the objection, Yellowstone refused to apply the 3:1 multiplier to the Bearces’ interest in Yellowstone. The Bearces sued Yellowstone, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract. On appeal, the Bearces argued the district court erred in concluding Yellowstone did not owe them a fiduciary duty and that, if a duty was owed, the Yellowstone Board of Directors did not breach its fiduciary duty. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Bearce v. Yellowstone Energy Development" on Justia Law

In August 2017, the City of West Fargo passed a resolution determining it was necessary to construct a sewer improvement project. The project consisted of the design and installation of two sewer pipes between West Fargo and Fargo. To complete the project, West Fargo had to acquire a right of way across certain private property, including Mark McAllister’s. McAllister appealed a judgment allowing the City of West Fargo to use its quick-take eminent domain power to acquire a right of way across his property. Because the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court inappropriately granted the N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) order certifying the judgment as final, it dismissed the appeal. View "City of West Fargo v. McAllister, et al." on Justia Law

PLS Services appealed a district court’s amended summary judgment dismissing its complaint against Valueplus Consulting, LLC, relating to a mortgage priority dispute. In February 2014, PLS was assigned two mortgages executed June 29, 2012, and recorded on July 10, 2012, against certain Williams County real property owned by Clear Creek Retirement Plan LLC. The mortgages and assignments to PLS contained incorrect legal descriptions and were therefore recorded in an errant tract index. Clear Creek and Valueplus executed a June 2012 purchase agreement whereby Valueplus agreed to purchase the subject property from Clear Creek. In January 2014, Fidelity Capital Services LLC assigned to Valueplus a mortgage against the subject property. The mortgage contained the correct legal description and was recorded in August 2013. In 2017, Valueplus sued Clear Creek to foreclose the mortgage. PLS moved to intervene, asserting its mortgages had priority. The district court denied PLS’s motion, and Valueplus subsequently purchased the subject property in June 2019. PLS sued Clear Creek, Valueplus, and others, alleging it had a superior interest in the subject property. PLS sought reformation and foreclosure of its mortgages. Valueplus denied the allegation and moved for summary judgment, arguing it purchased the property in good faith because it was unaware of PLS’s mortgages containing an incorrect legal description. PLS opposed Valueplus’ motion, asserting Valueplus was not a good faith purchaser. The district court granted Valueplus’ motion, concluding Valueplus was a good faith purchaser of the property and did not have actual knowledge or constructive notice of PLS’s mortgages. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the summary judgment against PLS as final under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b), but that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Instead of addressing PLS’s request for additional discovery in its order granting summary judgment, the district court concluded an affidavit was “uncontradicted” and Valueplus had no actual knowledge of PLS’s mortgages. However, PLS did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the statements made in the affidavit or depose the affiant. View "PLS Services v. Clear Creek Retirement Plan, et al." on Justia Law