863 N.W.2d 902
N.D.2015Background
- Parents owned ~480 acres farmland in Barnes County; 1979 quitclaim deed gave father sole ownership and a 1979 contract for deed to James for $200,000 with 6% interest through 2006 (unrecorded); 1979 wills contemplated a trust with life income to mother and remainder to children; oral modification in 1980 allegedly changed terms to pay living expenses and $12,000 annual interest; James and father farmed jointly and improvements were made; after father’s death James became personal representative, conveyed land to himself with mother’s life estate, and continued paying mother’s living expenses; after mother’s death in 2010 sisters sued for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, deceit, and breach of contract; district court found no contract for deed and voided land transfer as breach of fiduciary duty, awarding damages to mother’s estate and value of property as of 2013, plus sanctions and costs; this appeal followed by James Broten.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of oral contract via part performance | Broten argues payments/possession prove contract | Broten disputes exclusive possession/intent; alternative explanations exist | Not clearly erroneous; no unambiguous part performance found |
| Judicial estoppel and election of remedies | Louise seeks monetary damages/exclusive remedy; not barred | Inconsistent positions; estoppel applies | Remedies not barred; monetary damages upheld and voidable transaction treated separately |
| Restitution or unjust enrichment | Equitable restitution may apply for improvements and payments | Statute/contract defects limit recovery | Remedy for unjust enrichment insufficiently addressed; remand for compensation review |
| Remedies for fiduciary breach | Damages should reflect value of trust/property lost | Limitations of damages under trust law | Affirmed as breach of fiduciary duty with monetary damages; remand for remedy determination |
| Title/status after voidable transaction | Deed voidable; maintain title against heirs | Title affected by conflict-of-interest transaction | Transaction voidable; district court proper to determine remedial remedies on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Thompson, 2008 ND 144, 752 N.W.2d 624 (ND 2008) (oral contract part performance and standard of review for factual findings)
- Trosen v. Trosen, 2014 ND 7, 841 N.W.2d 687 (ND 2014) (part performance requires acts point unambiguously to contract)
- Johnson Farms v. McEnroe, 1997 ND 179, 568 N.W.2d 920 (ND 1997) (categories of acts for part performance: price, possession, improvements)
- Meide v. Stenehjem, 2002 ND 128, 649 N.W.2d 532 (ND 2002) (judicial estoppel factors; inconsistent positions and fairness)
- Abraham v. Durward, 46 N.D. 611, 180 N.W. 783 (ND 1920) (distinction between void and voidable contracts)
- Smestad v. Harris, 2012 ND 166, 820 N.W.2d 363 (ND 2012) (restitution where contract barred by statute of frauds)
- Ritter, Laber and Associates, Inc. v. Koch Oil, Inc., 2004 ND 117, 680 N.W.2d 634 (ND 2004) (unjust enrichment elements and recovery framework)
- Grand Forks Professional Baseball, Inc. v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 2002 ND 204, 654 N.W.2d 426 (ND 2002) (election of remedies and postponement to final judgment)