Capps v. Weflen
2013 ND 16
| N.D. | 2013Background
- In 1975 Ruth Nelson reserved one-half of the minerals in Mountrail County property conveyed to Olav and Rose Weflen.
- In 1979 Nelson conveyed her mineral interest to Patricia Capps and Terrel Anderson; Nelson’s deed was not recorded until 2009.
- Current surface owners are Colleen Weflen, Marleen Weflen, Sharon Kruse, Catherine Harris, Norris Weflen, Windsor Bakken, LLC, Gulfport Energy Corp., and EOG Resources.
- In 2005–2006 the Weflens published a Notice of Lapse of Mineral Interest; notices mailed to Nelson’s last addresses were undelivered; Nelson died in 1983; no Statement of Claim was filed within 60 days after first publication.
- Capps filed a statement of claim on Oct. 30, 2008; suit to quiet title filed Dec. 18, 2009.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Weflens, later reconsidered, and held Weflens had no claim to the one-half mineral interest; it entered final judgment under Rule 54(b) on fewer than all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 54(b) certification was appropriate | Weflens contend certification proper due to dependency of ancillary claims on the mineral dispute | District court found no just reason for delay given dependency of claims | Rule 54(b) certification abused; not an inappropriate exceptional case |
| Whether the district court properly directed entry of final judgment | Dispositive mineral issue remaining; ancillary claims unresolved | Certification justified by interdependence of claims | Abuse of discretion; final judgment improper before all claims resolved |
| Relation of adjudicated and unadjudicated claims | Ancillary claims hinge on the dormant minerals dispute | Claims are interrelated; merits depend on mineral ownership | Not sufficient to justify piecemeal appeal under 54(b) |
| Whether the case presents an infrequent harsh case warranting immediate review | No extraordinary circumstances shown; not an infrequent harsh case |
Key Cases Cited
- Pifer v. McDermott, 2012 ND 90 (2012) (sua sponte review of Rule 54(b) certification; abuse if not articulated; factors for certification)
- Brummund v. Brummund, 2008 ND 224 (2008) (Rule 54(b) certification requires extraordinary circumstances; not routine)
- Union State Bank v. Woell, 357 N.W.2d 234 (ND 1984) (factors for certification balancing judicial administration)
- Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 521 F.2d 360 (3d Cir. 1975) (explanation of Rule 54(b) principles)
- Peterson v. Zerr, 443 N.W.2d 293 (ND 1989) (context for discretionary review of certification)