Arndt v. Maki
813 N.W.2d 564
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Family dispute over mineral rights underlying the Arndt family farm in Mountrail County.
- Maki defendants are Richard Arndt’s siblings and his brother’s heirs; Arndt plaintiffs are Richard Arndt, his wife, and heirs who received mineral interests in 1984.
- 1973 contract for deed from Marie Arndt to Richard Arndt stated minerals go with the place and contained no mineral reservation.
- 1984 personal representative’s deed conveyed farm to Richard Arndt without a mineral reservation.
- 2007 personal representative’s deed conveyed minerals to all living heirs; Maki defendants later recorded claims in 2007.
- District court granted summary judgment dismissing Maki’s reformation counterclaims and quieted title in Arndt plaintiffs; court later allowed cross-appeal on slander of title, and the court’s conclusion on fees/distress is reconsidered on appeal as to material facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reformation of the 1973 contract and 1984 deed | Maki argues fraud/mistake justify reformation. | Arndt opposes reformation; documents unambiguous. | Reformation denied; documents unambiguous; no mutual mistake proven. |
| Attorney fees for slandering title under N.D.C.C. §47-19.1-09 | Arndts contend genuine issues of material fact exist warranting an evidentiary hearing. | Maki defends dismissal; no slander purpose shown. | Summary judgment reversed in part; issues of fact remain; remand for proceedings on fees/costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Hovland, 2011 ND 64 (2011) (clear-and-convincing standard for reformation; mutual mistake emphasis)
- Goetzfried, 2005 ND 149 (2005) (affirmed summary judgment where deed unambiguously reflected one party’s facts)
- Spitzer v. Bartelson, 2009 ND 179 (2009) (high standard of proof for reformation; need certainty of error)
- Wehner v. Schroeder, 335 N.W.2d 563; 354 N.W.2d 674 (N.D.1983; N.D.1984) (addressed mutual mistake/mineral reservations in conveyances)
- Lindquist v. Ball, 441 N.W.2d 590 (Neb. 1989) (in slander-of-title context, some jurisdictions apply summary-judgment-like analysis)