Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Charles Erwin appeals from an amended judgment entered in favor of Alerus Financial, N.A., for $5,265,653.09. Starting in 2012 Alerus made a series of loans totaling more than $15 million to Diverse Energy Systems, LLC. The loan agreement specified "Events of Default," including the failure to pay the indebtedness, the insolvency of the borrower or guarantor or the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. Erwin was Diverse's chief executive officer, and he signed multiple personal guaranties, promising to be personally responsible for payment of up to $4 million of Diverse's debt owed to Alerus. In September 2015 Diverse filed for bankruptcy. In May 2016 Alerus sued Erwin for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging Diverse was in default under the loan agreement and Erwin failed to make payment on the amount due under the guaranties. Alerus alleged Diverse's indebtedness exceeded $12 million and under the guaranties Erwin was liable for at least $4 million in principal and interest. On September 6, 2016, Erwin filed an answer to Alerus' complaint. Alerus moved for summary judgment, arguing Diverse defaulted on its loan obligations and Erwin breached the guaranty contracts by failing to pay the amounts due under the guaranties. Alerus also filed an affidavit in support of its motion from an Alerus employee, which it claimed showed the total outstanding principal and interest on the loans to Diverse. Erwin argued on appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court the district court abused its discretion by failing to rule on his motion to amend his answer and entering judgment without allowing him to conduct discovery on Alerus' damage claims. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the amended judgment. View "Alerus Financial, N.A. v. Erwin" on Justia Law

Sandy Botteicher ("Botteicher") appeals from a judgment dismissing her claims against Pam and Darwin Becker (collectively "Beckers") and awarding the Beckers $5,000 for their attorney fees. Botteicher and Pam Becker are sisters and heirs to their mother's estate. Following the death of their father in January 2015, Pam Becker was appointed legal guardian for their mother who was residing in a nursing home. Their mother died in July 2015. A third party was appointed personal representative of their mother's estate ("the estate"). Following the filing of the closing documents by the personal representative, Botteicher filed a number of petitions or motions. In her petitions, Botteicher sought to set aside what the parties refer to as the "Warehouse" transaction, a real property transfer in Dickinson that occurred in 2010 and 2011. Botteicher also requested an evidentiary hearing, objected to the final accounting, sought formal testacy proceedings, sought the disqualification of the attorney representing the personal representative, moved for the appointment of herself as the personal representative and sought to keep the estate open by alleging that numerous items of her mother's personal property were missing from the inventory and appraisement. The probate court denied all of the petitions or motions filed by Botteicher. The court denied the petition seeking to set aside the Warehouse transfer after concluding the personal representative, not Botteicher, had "standing" to assert an action to challenge the Warehouse transfer in the probate proceedings, and that the request to set aside the property transfer was "not properly in front of the Court." In the probate proceedings, Botteicher was attempting to personally initiate an action against the Beckers to set aside a transfer made by the decedent. The probate court issued an order approving the inventory and appraisement as well as the final account and distribution. Botteicher did not appeal the final decree of distribution. Approximately one month after the probate proceedings were closed, Botteicher and her daughter, Alexandra Botteicher, brought this action against the Beckers, alleging multiple claims regarding the estate's transactions under the Beckers. Unsuccessful, Botteicher challenged the district court's determination that some of her claims were previously resolved in separate probate proceedings and were barred by res judicata, that her claim for interference with the right of burial and her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress could be dismissed as a matter of law, and that the Beckers were entitled to an award of attorney fees. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "Botteicher v. Becker" on Justia Law

Roland Riemers appealed a district court judgment awarding CHS Inc. attorney's fees and costs, and an order denying Riemers' motion to reopen the case and close judgment. Riemers also moved to vacate the district court's "Corrected Amended Judgment." In March 2016, CHS was awarded a money judgment against Riemers for $38,889. In April 2016, Riemers deposited $41,100 into a bank account, apparently to be used for garnishment by CHS. In May 2016, on the motion of CHS, the district court entered an amended judgment ("Amended Judgment") in for $41,793.72 to reflect the prejudgment interest accrued. The North Dakota Supreme Court summarily affirmed the Amended Judgment as modified, reducing the prejudgment interest amount by $70.07. CHS began collecting on the Amended Judgment by garnishing funds that Riemers held at the bank and another account held by a credit union. The Supreme Court determined the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding CHS attorney's fees and costs on the basis of a frivolous motion, and affirmed the district court judgment. However, because the order denying Riemers' motion to reopen the case and close judgment reflected that the amount owing to CHS was $679.08, instead of the correct amount of $549.08, the Supreme Court modified the order, stating that $549.08 is the outstanding principal balance on the Amended Judgment. Because the district court lacked jurisdiction, the Supreme Court vacated the Corrected Amended Judgment. View "CHS Inc. v. Riemers" on Justia Law

Joshua Cook appealed after a jury found him guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, possession of heroin, possession of methadone, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence after proper foundation was laid, the court did not abuse its discretion by not granting a departure from the mandatory minimum sentence, and the court did not err in considering Cook's prior convictions when sentencing. View "North Dakota v. Cook" on Justia Law

Linda Nelson, Jill Mattson, Jeffrey Mattson, and Joan Louise Mattson appealed the district court's judgment quieting title to property in the Steven R. Mattson Living Trust and the Roald F. Mattson Living Trust (the "Trusts"), and awarding damages to Steven R. Mattson, the Steven R. Mattson Living Trust, and the Roald F. Mattson Living Trust (collectively, the "Mattsons"). Because the joint tenancy between Leif, Alf, and Roald Mattson was not severed prior to Leif Mattson's death, the North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court did not clearly err by quieting title to property in the Trusts. Further, the district court did not clearly err by awarding damages to the Trusts for the oil and gas lease payments under a theory of conversion. However, the district court erred by awarding damages to Steven Mattson for the amount he paid to Leif's heirs for the purported interest they owned in the surface of the property because unjust enrichment was unavailable and the voluntary payment doctrine applies. Therefore, the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Nelson v. Mattson" on Justia Law

Linda Nelson, Jill Mattson, Jeffrey Mattson, and Joan Louise Mattson appealed the district court's judgment quieting title to property in the Steven R. Mattson Living Trust and the Roald F. Mattson Living Trust (the "Trusts"), and awarding damages to Steven R. Mattson, the Steven R. Mattson Living Trust, and the Roald F. Mattson Living Trust (collectively, the "Mattsons"). Because the joint tenancy between Leif, Alf, and Roald Mattson was not severed prior to Leif Mattson's death, the North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court did not clearly err by quieting title to property in the Trusts. Further, the district court did not clearly err by awarding damages to the Trusts for the oil and gas lease payments under a theory of conversion. However, the district court erred by awarding damages to Steven Mattson for the amount he paid to Leif's heirs for the purported interest they owned in the surface of the property because unjust enrichment was unavailable and the voluntary payment doctrine applies. Therefore, the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Nelson v. Mattson" on Justia Law

Richie Wilder appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of murder and from an order partially granting his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Wilder argued his conviction had to be reversed and he was entitled to a new trial because his constitutional right to remain silent was violated by the State's improper comments during closing argument. He alternatively argued his sentence was illegal and should be amended because the district court erred by ordering him to have no contact with his children until they turn 18 years old. A comment on the defendant's post-arrest silence is an improper comment on the right to remain silent in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The statutory sentencing provisions did not authorize the sentencing court to order no contact as part of a prison sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment as to Wilder's conviction, reversed the judgment as to his sentence, and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Wilder" on Justia Law

Rocky Mountain Steel Foundations, Inc. appealed a judgment invalidating its oil and gas construction liens and awarding attorney fees to Mitchell's Oil Field Services, Inc., also known as Wood Group, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (collectively "Mitchell's"). Mitchell's, as general contractor, entered into a contract with Brockett Company, LLC, as subcontractor, and Amber Brockett, as personal guarantor (collectively "Brockett"), to purchase construction materials for installation on certain oil wells. Brockett purchased materials from Rocky Mountain to fulfill Brockett's contract with Mitchell's. Mitchell's paid Brockett in full. Rocky Mountain delivered the materials, and Mitchell's installed the materials. Rocky Mountain thereafter recorded two oil and gas well liens against the wells because Brockett had not paid Rocky Mountain. Mitchell's recorded lien release bonds, with the liens attached to the bonds. Mitchell's received payment in full, then Rocky Mountain filed to foreclose on the liens. The parties agreed Mitchell's paid Brockett in full before Rocky Mountain delivered the materials to the wells and before Mitchell's or the leaseholders received notice of the liens. The parties agreed Rocky Mountain timely and properly satisfied all statutory and other requirements to create, perfect, and foreclose on the liens. Rocky Mountain recorded the liens on well leaseholds by ConocoPhillips Company and Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. (the "owners"). Brockett did not answer or appear at any hearings and admitted to nonpayment, but asserted it has no assets with which to pay. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Rocky Mountain for its breach of contract claim against Brockett. The parties submitted their remaining claims to the district court solely on interpretation of the oil and gas construction liens provided by N.D.C.C. ch. 35-24. The court found N.D.C.C. 35-24-04 invalidated Rocky Mountain's liens after the owners paid Mitchell's. The primary issue before the North Dakota Supreme Court was whether N.D.C.C. 35-24-04 permitted a subcontractor's oil and gas construction lien when an owner fully paid the general contractor. Rocky Mountain argued the district court erred in finding Rocky Mountain's liens were invalidated when the owners fully paid Mitchell's. The Supreme Court agreed: Section 35-24-02, N.D.C.C., allowed contractors to file liens for unpaid materials furnished or services rendered "in the drilling or operating of any oil or gas well upon such leasehold." The district court erred in interpreting N.D.C.C. sections 35-24-04 and -07 to invalidate Rocky Mountain's liens, and also erred in awarding attorney fees to Mitchell's. View "Rocky Mountain Steel Foundations, Inc. v. Brockett Company, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2015, Amira Gunn and Calvin Till communicated in private conversations on MeetMe.com, a social networking website. Gunn and Till exchanged more than 700 messages between November 11 and 13. In a portion of the conversations, Gunn gave explicit and lewd instructions to Till on how to groom and sexually assault his young daughter and how to abduct and sexually assault Till's two neighbor children. During an interview with police, Gunn admitted to having the conversations with Till, acknowledging she knew of Till's sexual fetish for children including his own daughter. Gunn stated she believed Till's daughter was approximately six years old. Gunn characterized the conversations with Till as role-playing. Gunn was ultimately convicted of attempted gross sexual imposition (a class A felony). At trial, a police detective testified he believed the initial conversations between Gunn and Till involved role-playing. The detective testified he believed the role-playing eventually ceased and Gunn and Till reassumed their own identities. The detective testified that later in the conversations Till relayed to Gunn that he was sexually assaulting his daughter in real-time. Gunn argued on appeal of her conviction and sentence there was no evidence of a victim in this case: because Till's daughter was not present during the online conversations and that the neighbor children could have been imaginary, thus no victim. Gunn also claimed that since Till did not commit the crime of gross sexual imposition, there was no evidence that Gunn aided him in any way. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error in this matter, and affirmed Gunn’s conviction and sentence. View "North Dakota v. Gunn" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed an order denying his motion to amend the parties' parenting time schedule to allow an overnight, out-of-state family vacation during the summer of 2018 and awarding attorney fees to Kayla Rath. He argued the district court improperly denied his motion to amend the parties' parenting time schedule and abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees. He further argued the trial judge acted prejudicially and with bias, warranting immediate recusal and relief through this Court's issuance of a supervisory writ. A claim for relief is frivolous only if there is such a complete absence of actual facts or law a reasonable person could not have expected a court would render a judgment in that person's favor. The authority to issue supervisory writs is exercised rarely and cautiously, and only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases in which there is no adequate alternative remedy. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of his motion to amend the parties' parenting time schedule, reversed the court's award of attorney fees, and denied his request for a supervisory writ. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law