Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Northern Grain Equipment, LLC entered into contracts with Thimjon Farms Partnership and Hagemeister Farms to construct grain-handling systems on their respective properties. Neither Thimjon nor Hagemeister were customers of First International Bank & Trust. Both Thimjon and Hagemeister made down payments to Northern Grain, which were deposited in Northern Grain's account at First International. Northern Grain never constructed the grain-handling systems and discontinued business. Thimjon and Hagemeister brought separate actions against First International, alleging First International's decision to cease loaning money to Northern Grain resulted in Northern Grain breaching its contracts with Thimjon and Hagemeister and that First International intentionally misled Northern Grain to the detriment of Thimjon and Hagemeister. First International moved for summary judgment. While the motion was pending, Thimjon and Hagemeister moved to amend their complaints to add a claim for deceit and to seek exemplary damages. The district court denied the motion to amend, granted First International's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment dismissing Thimjon's and Hagemeister's claims with prejudice. Thimjon and Hagemeister appealed, arguing the district court erred by granting First International's motion and by denying their motion to amend. Finding no error in the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Thimjon Farms Partnership v. First International Bank & Trust" on Justia Law

Janet L. Brash, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Larry R. Brash, appealed judgment entered after a bench trial that dismissed her action against William M. Gulleson. We affirm. In the mid-1980s, Dr. Brash began running cows on Gulleson's ranch under an oral agreement to operate on a "60/40 share basis." Gulleson provided care and feed and received 60 percent of the calf crop from Dr. Brash's cows, and Dr. Brash provided veterinarian services. In the fall of 1997, Dr. Brash supervised an inventory and evaluation of cows on the Gulleson ranch, which included cows owned by Gulleson, Dr. Brash, and two or three others who had agreements with Gulleson. At that time, Dr. Brash had 108 cows on the Gulleson ranch. In 2000, Dr. Brash and Gulleson executed a written Cow/Calf Production Lease Agreement. Under the terms of the Agreement, the Brashes agreed to furnish 130 cows presently situated on the Gulleson farm to be cared for by Gulleson, and Gulleson would in return give the Brashes 40 percent of the calf crop each year. After Dr. Brash's death in 2004, Janet Brash testified she became the sole owner of all 130 cows and their offspring; however, when she demanded the return of the estate's and her portion of the herd, Gulleson returned only seven cows. In 2005, Janet Brash brought this action against Gulleson, alleging Gulleson failed to comply with the Agreement executed in 2000. After trial, the court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment, holding in part that Dr. Brash had failed to provide 130 cows as required under the contract, which constituted a failure of consideration, and that Janet Brash had failed to prove a breach of the agreement by Gulleson. The court dismissed Brash's claims with prejudice. Judgment was entered in June 2012. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in concluding there was a failure of consideration in the performance of the Cow/Calf Production Lease Agreement between the Brashes and Gulleson. View "Brash v. Gulleson" on Justia Law

Barbara McDermott appealed a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding Kevin Pifer $80,957.07 in damages for unlawful interference with business, and several other orders issued by the district court in connection with these proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in ruling as a matter of law that a purchase option given to Pifer by her mother, Dorothy Bevan, was a valid and enforceable gift. Furthermore, the Court concluded the interference with business claim was properly presented to the jury, the evidence supports the jury verdict and the court did not abuse its discretion in its related rulings and orders. View "Pifer v. McDermott" on Justia Law

Solid Comfort, Inc., appealed a judgment that awarded damages against Hatchett Hospitality, Inc., and that dismissed William Glen Hatchett ("Glen Hatchett"), Nu Horizon Renovation, LLC, and Hospitality Depot, LLC, for lack of personal jurisdiction. Under the law applied in the district court, the Supreme Court concluded Solid Comfort established a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over Glen Hatchett, Nu Horizon, and Hospitality Depot sufficient to defeat their motion to dismiss. View "Solid Comfort, Inc. v. Hatchett Hospitality, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant John Schmitt appealed the dismissal of his claims against MeritCare Health System for defamation, tortious interference with a prospective business advantage, and violation of state antitrust law. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiff's allegations lacked merit, and affirmed the grant of summary judgment dismissing his claims. View "Schmitt v. MeritCare Health System" on Justia Law

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

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

K & L Homes, Inc. ("K & L") appealed the trial court's summary judgment declaring no coverage existed under K & L's commercial general liability ("CGL") policy with American Family Mutual Insurance Company ("American Family") for damages awarded against K & L in an underlying action. Upon review of the applicable case law pertinent to this matter, the Supreme Court concluded there could be an "occurrence" under the CGL policy at issue in this case. Therefore, the Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "K & L Homes, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Steam Brothers, Inc. appealed the grant of summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action by John Riedlinger, Dale Stroh, Kevin Vetter, Leo Horner, and Duane Leier, five individuals, collectively referred to as "licensees". The district court decided that the clear and unambiguous language of the license agreements did not obligate the licensees to provide Steam Brothers and its owner Jerry Thomas, with certain business information and precluded Steam Brothers from terminating the license agreements absent mutual consent of the parties. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the license agreements were ambiguous about the parties' rights and obligations. View "Riedlinger v. Steam Brothers, Inc." on Justia Law

MayPort Farmers Co-Op appealed the judgment entered after trial and the district court's order denying MayPort's motion to amend findings of fact and conclusions of law and to amend judgment. MayPort sued St. Hilaire Seed Co., Inc., alleging St. Hilaire owed MayPort money for storage of edible beans St. Hilaire purchased from MayPort. The district court concluded "usage of trade" applied as a gap-filler and found industry custom and standards rendered storage charges inappropriate because MayPort's inability to perform caused the need for storage. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying MayPort's motion to amend. View "MayPort Farmers Co-Op v. St. Hilaire Seed Company, Inc." on Justia Law