Bloomquist v. Goose River Bank
2013 ND 154
| N.D. | 2013Background
- In 2009 Bloomquist alleges the Bank orally agreed to lend $500,000 (30-year, 6%) to buy two quarter‑sections and an additional $250,000 on the same terms to buy a third quarter‑section if he sold certain beet stock.
- Bloomquist successfully bid at auction for three quarter‑sections for a total purchase price of $844,524 and paid $84,452.40 earnest money using an advance on an existing Bank line of credit.
- The Bank declined to provide the alleged loans and Bloomquist sued for breach of the oral loan agreement.
- The Bank moved for summary judgment arguing no enforceable oral contract existed and, alternatively, that any oral loan agreement was barred by the statute of frauds.
- The district court granted summary judgment holding the oral agreement was barred by the statute of frauds; Bloomquist appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a valid oral loan agreement existed | Bloomquist: Bank agreed to lend $500,000 (plus $250,000 contingent) and consented to higher post‑auction amounts | Bank: No mutual consent; bids exceeded any authorization; third parcel purchase conditions unmet; no loan to corporation | Assumed arguendo for summary judgment review that an oral agreement existed; court resolved case on statute of frauds grounds |
| Whether the alleged oral loan is barred by statute of frauds (§ 9‑06‑04(4)) | Bloomquist: No writing but claims partial performance removes statute of frauds bar | Bank: Loan amount ($750,000 or $844,524) exceeds $25,000 so oral agreement is invalid | Held: Agreement for lending money over $25,000 is barred by statute of frauds |
| Whether the alleged loan is barred by statute of frauds as not performable within one year (§ 9‑06‑04(1)) | Bloomquist: Loan was to be amortized over 30 years; seeks enforcement | Bank: Thirty‑year repayment term places it within one‑year provision | Held: Oral loan with express 30‑year amortization (no prepayment term) is barred under the one‑year clause |
| Whether partial performance removes the agreement from the statute of frauds | Bloomquist: He bid, drafted purchase agreements, paid earnest money; Bank advanced earnest from line of credit | Bank: Actions are consistent with other explanations (other financing, own funds); the earnest advance came from an independent preexisting line of credit | Held: Plaintiff's and Bank's acts do not "unmistakably point" to the alleged oral loan; partial performance insufficient to remove statute of frauds bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Kohanowski v. Burkhardt, 2012 ND 199, 821 N.W.2d 740 (statute of frauds bars oral loan agreement with express multi‑year repayment terms)
- Rickert v. Dakota Sanitation Plus, Inc., 2012 ND 37, 812 N.W.2d 413 (partial performance must be consistent only with alleged oral contract)
- Delzer v. United Bank of Bismarck, 459 N.W.2d 752 (N.D. 1990) (distinguished on facts regarding performability within one year)
- Kuntz v. Kuntz, 1999 ND 114, 595 N.W.2d 292 (partial performance applied to oral sale of farmland)
- Golden v. SM Energy Co., 2013 ND 17, 826 N.W.2d 610 (summary judgment standard review principles)