997 N.W.2d 829
N.D.2023Background
- Michael Craft executed two loans with Bravera Bank: Note 2203 (2017) secured by Mountrail County land; Note 9077 (2018) secured by Stanley property. Note 2203 mortgage included cross-collateralization and future-advance clauses; Note 9077 mortgage included a “breach of other agreement” cross-default clause.
- Bravera sued in June 2022 to foreclose Note 9077, alleging Craft failed to pay property taxes on the 9077 property and was in default under Note 2203 (and insolvent), making 9077 also in default via the cross-collateralization clause.
- Scheduling order set deadlines: discovery by Dec 15, 2022; dispositive motions by Jan 1, 2023; preliminary trial Feb 1, 2023. Bravera moved for summary judgment Nov 9, 2022; Craft responded Dec 8, 2022 (did not request a hearing or present evidence disputing defaults other than asserting 9077 payments were current).
- The court set a January 12, 2023 hearing after the parties’ deadlines had passed. Craft retained new counsel and moved (Jan 5) to supplement briefing and continue the hearing/trial. On Jan 9, 2023 the court canceled the hearing and granted summary judgment for Bravera, finding default on Note 2203 meant Note 9077 was in default.
- The district court did not rule separately on Craft’s supplemental-briefing and continuance motions; the court deemed the summary-judgment motion fully submitted and resolved the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by deciding summary judgment after motion was fully submitted and before the scheduled hearing | Bravera: motion was fully submitted; Rule allows decision once briefs filed or time to file expires | Craft: court should not cancel hearing or decide before hearing/exhibit submission | Court: No error — motion was fully submitted; parties had missed deadlines; court may decide without hearing |
| Whether court erred by not explaining denial of Craft’s subsequent motions (supplemental briefing/continuance) | Bravera: summary judgment resolved the case, rendering other motions moot | Craft: court should have provided rationale for denying those motions | Court: No error — summary judgment rendered those motions moot; explicit explanation unnecessary here |
| Whether summary judgment was properly granted based on cross-collateralization/default under Note 2203 | Bravera: undisputed evidence showed default on Note 2203 and mortgage contained cross-collateral clause, which triggered default of 9077 | Craft: only argued 9077 payments were current; contested court’s use of 2203 where note itself wasn’t filed | Court: Granted SJ — Craft failed to present admissible evidence creating a material factual dispute; record contained sufficient proof of Note 2203 mortgage and default |
| Whether cross-collateralization clause enforceability should defeat SJ (preservation of argument) | Bravera: clause applied; enforceability not contested below | Craft: (raised first on appeal) such clauses are disfavored and should be unenforceable | Court: Declined to address — issue not raised in district court and thus forfeited on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Alerus Fin., N.A. v. Marcil Grp., Inc., 806 N.W.2d 160 (N.D. 2011) (summary-judgment rulings can implicitly deny pending motions rendered moot)
- Knorr v. Norberg, 977 N.W.2d 711 (N.D. 2022) (district courts must sometimes explain legal bases to enable appellate review)
- State v. Craig, 927 N.W.2d 99 (N.D. 2019) (limitations on relying upon court-issued notices for procedural rights)
- Borsheim Builders Supply, Inc. v. Manger Ins., Inc., 917 N.W.2d 504 (N.D. 2018) (standard for reviewing summary judgment; de novo review)
- Miller v. Nodak Ins. Co., 987 N.W.2d 369 (N.D. 2023) (opponent must present competent admissible evidence to resist summary judgment)
- Alerus Fin., N.A. v. Erwin, 911 N.W.2d 296 (N.D. 2018) (nonmovant may not rest on pleadings; must show genuine issue of material fact)
- Viscito v. Christianson, 862 N.W.2d 777 (N.D. 2015) (issues not raised below may not be raised for first time on appeal)
- Spratt v. MDU Res. Grp., Inc., 797 N.W.2d 328 (N.D. 2011) (opposing party must connect facts to legal theories; cannot leave court to divine relevance)
- Tarnavsky v. Rankin, 771 N.W.2d 578 (N.D. 2009) (summary judgment practice — nonmovant’s burden to present admissible evidence)