Beaudoin v. JB Mineral Services
2011 ND 229
| N.D. | 2011Background
- 1979 contract for deed for real estate with a mineral reservation clause; probate split mineral acres between a trust and Garoldine Van Berkom.
- After payments under the contract for deed, Garoldine conveyed the land to James and Betty Van Berkom in 1995 via warranty deed that did not reserve minerals.
- Garoldine’s estate later conveyed mineral rights to Mark Barenthsen under a power of sale/option; the dispute concerns the undivided one-half mineral rights allegedly owned by James/Betty and Barenthsen.
- The Cordonniers claimed the warranty deed was subject to a mutual mistake and sought reformation to reflect the contract for deed’s mineral reservation.
- In 2008 the Van Berkoms and Barenthens sought to lease the disputed mineral acres; the trial court quieted title in favor of James and Betty and rejected reformation; the Cordonniers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court clearly erred in finding no mutual mistake justifying reformation | Cordonniers contended the deed should be reformed to reflect the mineral reservation | Van Berkoms argued the deed correctly expresses Garoldine’s intent | Not clearly erroneous; no mutual mistake shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Ell v. Ell, 295 N.W.2d 150 (N.D. 1980) (equitable reformation requires clear proof of mutual mistake)
- Spitzer v. Bartelson, 2009 ND 179, 773 N.W.2d 798 (N.D. 2009) (reformation based on mutual mistake requires clear, convincing evidence)
- Meyer v. McCormick, Inc., 445 N.W.2d 21 (N.D. 1989) (mutual mistake standard for reformation)
- Ell v. Ell (alternative citation)**, 295 N.W.2d 143 (N.D. 1980) (reaffirmation of need to show intention difference at signing)
- Johnson v. Hovland, 2011 ND 64, 795 N.W.2d 294 (N.D. 2011) (equity-based remedial relief in reformation)