893 N.W.2d 498
N.D.2017Background
- In 1945, a quiet title judgment declared Lyman and Martha Brokaw owners in fee simple of the property; no other records exist of the quiet title action.
- In 1958, Lyman conveyed an undivided full interest in the minerals to North American, but he owned only a one-half mineral interest; Martha retained the other one-half.
- By the action time, mineral ownership among the successors was alleged as Hamill Foundation 50%, Black Stone 25%, Missouri River 18.75%, Bauer 6.25%.
- North American Successors sued Brokaw to quiet title; Brokaw moved for summary judgment arguing the 1945 judgment vested only Martha’s one-half interest upon Lyman’s conveyance.
- District court granted Brokaw summary judgment, vesting a one-half mineral interest in North American Successors; it did not specify the interests of Hamill, Black Stone, Missouri River, and Bauer.
- The Superior issues included whether the 1945 judgment vested Martha with a one-half interest, the viability of adverse possession and MRTA claims, the good-faith purchaser defense, and the propriety of a motion to correct the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did 1945 judgment vest Martha with one-half of the minerals? | North American Successors argued the judgment divested Lyman of half and vested Martha. | Brokaw argued the judgment awarded fee simple to Lyman and Martha jointly, with no fractional detail. | The judgment vested title in Lyman and Martha in equal shares. |
| Does Sickler-style adverse possession apply to the mineral interests here? | North American Successors contended adverse possession could be established through possession of the minerals. | Brokaw contends later acquisition could support possession. | No adverse possession existed until after 2013; Sickler standard not met earlier. |
| Does MRTA, as amended in 2013, apply to extending possession for adverse possession purposes? | North American Successors claim the 2013 amendment expands possession to adverse possession analysis. | Brokaw argues the amendment does not extend adverse possession. | The 2013 amendment applies to MRTA purposes only, not adverse possession. |
| Does MRTA grant rights to North American Successors based on possession under §47-19.1-07? | North American Successors rely on MRTA to defeat claims. | Brokaw contends lack of possession affidavits defeats MRTA. | Neither Missouri River nor Bauer filed possession affidavits; MRTA inapplicable to their claims. |
| Does good-faith purchaser protection apply under 47-19-41 to the 1945 judgment? | North American Successors rely on good-faith purchaser protections. | Brokaw argues the 1945 judgment is prior-recorded and controls. | Rule 47-19-41 does not shield North American Successors from the 1945 judgment. |
| Whether the Rule 60(a) motion to correct judgment was properly denied/ought to vest North American any share? | North American Successors sought correct distribution of the half-interest. | Brokaw argued the court lacked jurisdiction to adjust the judgment. | District court abused discretion by vesting any share in North American; remanded to correct. |
Key Cases Cited
- McKenzie County v. Hodel, 467 N.W.2d 701 (N.D. 1991) (judgment can convey title)
- Slorby v. Slorby, 760 N.W.2d 89 (N.D. 2009) (interpretation of judgments; de novo review)
- Sullivan v. Quist, 506 N.W.2d 394 (N.D. 1993) (plain-language interpretation governs if unambiguous)
- Moody v. Sundley, 868 N.W.2d 491 (N.D. 2015) (possession standards for adverse possession)
- Sickler v. Pope, 326 N.W.2d 86 (N.D. 1982) (possession must be more than leases to support adverse possession)
- Hall v. Malloy, 862 N.W.2d 514 (N.D. 2015) (conveyance includes judgments for good-faith protections under MRTA)
- Erickson v. Olsen, 875 N.W.2d 535 (N.D. 2016) (Rule 60(a) abuse of discretion standard; corrections limited to clerical errors)
- Sexton v. Sutherland, 164 N.W. 278 (N.D. 1917) (homestead actions; equity in interpretation)