938 N.W.2d 159
N.D.2020Background
- In 1998 Aftem purchased ~10.7 acres and platted portions into three subdivisions (Arrowhead Point, Bridgeview, Riverview Estates).
- Each recorded plat contained owner dedication language granting roads and rights-of-way to the public and included surveyor certification and county signatures.
- Mountrail County Commissioners approved the plats but stated the County would not assume maintenance responsibility for the subdivision roads.
- Aftem created covenants and the Riverview HOA; the HOA later installed a water system with lines running under portions of the platted roads.
- Aftem sued the Riverview HOA for trespass and negligence, claiming it retained ownership of the roads because the County refused maintenance; HOA argued the recorded statutory dedications vested ownership in the public/county.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the HOA; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding the plats met statutory dedication requirements and divested Aftem of ownership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aftem retained fee ownership of platted subdivision roads after approval and recording of plats | Aftem: County’s conditional approval (refusal to maintain) made the approval imperfect, so Aftem kept ownership | Riverview: Recorded statutory dedication on the plats vested fee title in the public/county regardless of maintenance decision | Court: Plats satisfied statutory requirements; dedication vested title in the public and divested Aftem of ownership; summary judgment for HOA affirmed |
| Whether the County’s conditional statement about maintenance affected the legal efficacy of the recorded dedication | Aftem: The conditional approval prevented a completed conveyance | Riverview: No condition appears on the face of the recorded plats; maintenance responsibility is separate from statutory conveyance | Court: No maintenance condition appears on the plats; court need not decide maintenance responsibility; condition did not invalidate statutory dedication |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnston Land Co., LLC v. Sorenson, 930 N.W.2d 90 (N.D. 2019) (summary-judgment standard and review de novo)
- Becker v. Burleigh County, 924 N.W.2d 393 (N.D. 2019) (summary-judgment principles cited)
- Winnie Dev. LLLP v. Reveling, 907 N.W.2d 413 (N.D. 2018) (statutory dedication requires a legally accurate description of the dedicated parcel)