Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner-Appellant Darin Dahl appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. He argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a bifurcated trial under N.D.C.C. 12.1-04.1-16 and for failing to request the verdict form reflect the possibility of a finding of "not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility." Finding that Petitioner failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability the result of his trial would have been different if his counsel had requested a bifurcated trial, and that his claim to ineffective assistance of counsel was frivolous and without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dahl v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Dammon Burgard appealed a trial court's default judgment awarding Plaintiff-Appellee Kira Burgard primary residential responsibility of the parties' two minor children. Specifically, Defendant argued the trial court abused its discretion in granting Kira Burgard's motion without a hearing and without sufficient evidence to evaluate the best interests of the child factors under N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2(1). The Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion nor err in granting the default judgment. View "Burgard v. Burgard" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Terence and Rachel Barrett appealed the dismissal of their claims against Defendant-Appellee Harry Gilbertson (dba Harry Gilbertson Construction) in a contract dispute. Plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in dismissing their breach of contract claims related to the construction of their house, and that the court abused its discretion in denying their motion for attorney's fees. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to establish Defendant breached the terms of the construction contract or that the trial court did abused its discretion in denying the Plaintiffs' claim for attorney's fees. View "Barrett v. Gilbertson" 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

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

The State appealed and Ernest Coppage cross-appealed a district court judgment granting Coppage's application for post-conviction relief, vacating his attempted murder conviction, and ordering a new trial. The State argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court erred in finding Coppage received ineffective assistance of counsel and erred in granting his application for post-conviction relief. Coppage argued the court's decision on his ineffective assistance claim should be affirmed but the court erred by failing to rule on his other claims for post-conviction relief. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court correctly started its analysis of the issues by deciding whether Coppage's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a limiting instruction. However, the court did not properly apply the law to determine whether Coppage was prejudiced and the court failed to decide whether post-conviction counsel was also ineffective. Therefore the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Coppage v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

J.M. appealed an order denying his petition for discharge as a sexually dangerous individual. He contended on appeal that the district court erred in not striking the testimony and report of the State's expert because she testified she had not reviewed his entire file at the State Hospital. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in denying J.M.'s motion to strike the expert's testimony and report and did not clearly err in deciding J.M. remains a sexually dangerous individual. View "Interest of J.M." on Justia Law

In 1989, Southeastern recovered a judgment against David Herzig in a North Carolina court. In August 1998, the North Carolina judgment was transcribed and filed in North Dakota under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, and renewed in North Carolina in 2000, and was again transcribed and filed in North Dakota for enforcement purposes. In 2004, Alphild Herzig, David Herzig's mother, was joined as a party. In 2005, Southeastern moved for an order compelling Alphild Herzig to comply with Southeastern's discovery requests and requested sanctions. In June 2006, Southeastern moved to compel discovery and requested sanctions. The court granted Southeastern's motion for sanctions against Alphild Herzig contingent on submission of a checklist of items to be produced so the court could set a daily sanction for each item not provided. The court also found Alphild Herzig was in contempt and awarded attorney fees. In August 2006, Alphild Herzig moved for release from the sanctions. The court denied her motion. In 2008, Alphild Herzig moved for an order to dismiss her as a party in the original action and vacating the 2004 order joining her as a party and all subsequent orders issued against her, including the 2006 contempt orders. Southeastern opposed Alphild Herzig's motion to dismiss. However, Alphild Herzig died before the court ruled on the motion. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the daily sanctions imposed on Alphild Herzig under 2006 contempt orders abated at her death. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court had not followed its instructions on whether a portion of the daily sanctions were intended to be money damages to compensate Southeastern or whether the sanctions were a forfeiture. As such, the Court reversed and remanded the district court to make that determination. View "Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig" on Justia Law