Capps v. Weflen
2014 ND 201
| N.D. | 2014Background
- In 1975 Ruth Nelson reserved one-half of the minerals when she conveyed surface to Olaf and Rose Weflen; that deed was recorded.
- In 1979 Nelson executed a mineral deed to Patricia Capps and Terrel Anderson; that 1979 deed was not recorded until 2009.
- The Weflens published notices of lapse of the mineral interest in late 2005/early 2006 and mailed copies by certified mail to two addresses for Nelson shown of record; mailings were returned and no statement of claim was filed within 60 days.
- The Weflens recorded termination and supporting affidavits in March 2006; Capps discovered possible oil activity in 2008, filed a statement of claim, recorded the 1979 deed in 2009, and sued to quiet title.
- The district court originally held the Weflens failed to comply with N.D.C.C. ch. 38-18.1 notice requirements; parties litigated related deed-interpretation issues between Capps and Nelson’s heirs (Hassans).
- The Supreme Court reversed: it held the Weflens complied with the statutory notice requirements as a matter of law and that the statutory notice provisions are constitutional as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weflens complied with N.D.C.C. ch. 38-18.1 notice requirements | Capps: Weflens failed to comply because they mailed notices to a deceased record owner and thus notice was not reasonably calculated to reach the true owners | Weflens: Mailing to addresses shown of record satisfied § 38-18.1-06(2); no additional reasonable inquiry required when address appears of record | Court: Mailing to record address satisfied statute; surface owner must do reasonable inquiry only if no address appears of record — district court erred |
| Whether knowledge that the record owner was deceased requires a reasonable inquiry | Capps: Actual knowledge of death makes mailing to record address inadequate; must search heirs | Weflens: Prior ND precedent allows mailing to record address even if owner likely deceased | Held: Actual knowledge of death does not trigger a reasonable-inquiry requirement when an address appears of record; precedent controls |
| Whether certified mail/restricted delivery violated statutory mailing requirement | Capps: Use of certified restrictive delivery to a dead person is improper and guarantees nonreceipt | Weflens: Statute does not specify type of mailing; certified mail is permissible | Held: Statute does not prohibit certified mail; use of certified/restricted mail did not invalidate notice (no record evidence restricted delivery changed outcome) |
| Whether N.D.C.C. ch. 38-18.1 notice provisions violate due process as applied | Capps: Mullane requires notice reasonably calculated to reach interested parties; mailing to a deceased record owner was inadequate | Weflens: Texaco v. Short upholds similar self‑executing mineral lapse schemes; no judicial action required before lapse; Mullane inapplicable to the self‑executing lapse | Held: Statute is constitutional on its face and as applied; Short controls — the self‑executing lapse scheme does not violate due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Zimbelman, 2014 ND 34, 842 N.W.2d 852 (standards for summary judgment)
- Arndt v. Maki, 2012 ND 55, 813 N.W.2d 564 (summary judgment standard)
- Johnson v. Taliaferro, 2011 ND 34, 793 N.W.2d 804 (reasonable-inquiry analysis under § 38-18.1-06)
- Sorenson v. Felton, 2011 ND 33, 793 N.W.2d 799 (address-of-record mailing suffices absent missing record address)
- Sorenson v. Alinder, 2011 ND 36, 793 N.W.2d 797 (no reasonable inquiry required when mailing to record address even if owner likely deceased)
- Peterson v. Jasmanka ex rel. Clark, 2014 ND 40, 842 N.W.2d 920 (abandoned mineral statute is self-executing)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (due process notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516 (upholding constitutionality of a self-executing mineral lapse statute)
- Tulsa Prof’l Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (distinguishing statutes that require active state involvement from self-executing limitations)
Outcome: Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment quieting title to the subject mineral interests in the Weflens.