Chornuk v. Nelson, 2014 ND 238

Harry and Linda Chornuk bought a 1.667-acre tract in 1986 by warranty deed but did not record it until June 24, 2010.
Mildred Dahl (after her husband’s death) conveyed the same tract to Craig and Julie Nelson by warranty deed on June 17, 2005; that deed was recorded July 5, 2005.
The Chornuks sued in 2010 to quiet title and for trespass/conversion after the Nelsons cut down trees; district court denied the Nelsons’ summary judgment motion and held a bench trial.
Trial evidence showed the Chornuks had openly maintained the disputed parcel (mowing several times yearly, planting trees in the 1990s, installing drip irrigation and flower boxes, occasional equipment parking) and the Nelsons drove past the property frequently and observed some of these activities.
The district court found the Nelsons had constructive notice of the Chornuks’ interest, were not good-faith purchasers, quieted title in the Chornuks, and awarded damages (initially $2,830, later reduced to $360).
The Nelsons appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed the quiet-title judgment and the amended damage award, rejecting waiver arguments based on the method of judgment satisfaction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Chornuk)	Defendant's Argument (Nelson)	Held
Whether Nelsons were good-faith purchasers under § 47-19-41	Chornuks: Nelsons had constructive notice from open, notorious use and therefore were not good-faith purchasers	Nelsons: Their recorded 2005 deed is superior because Chornuks’ deed was unrecorded until 2010; they lacked notice of Chornuks’ interest	Held: Nelsons had constructive notice from Chornuks’ open maintenance and use, so not good-faith purchasers; title quieted in Chornuks
Whether constructive notice existed	Chornuks: mowing, trees, irrigation, flower boxes and use were sufficient to put a prudent buyer on inquiry notice	Nelsons: They only saw mowing/watering and did not know who performed it; that is insufficient to trigger duty to inquire	Held: Evidence supported that a prudent person would be put on inquiry; Nelsons failed to inquire and were charged with constructive notice
Whether voluntary payment of judgment waived right to appeal	Chornuks: Nelsons paid the judgment, so they waived appeal rights	Nelsons: Satisfaction resulted from sheriff’s execution before reconsideration hearing — not voluntary	Held: Payment satisfied by execution is not voluntary; Nelsons did not waive right to appeal
Sufficiency of damage award and amendment	Chornuks: original damages for destroyed trees supported	Nelsons: damage award unsupported; requested reconsideration	Held: Court reduced award to $360 by amended judgment; affirmed on appeal

State ex rel. Storbakken v. Scott’s Elec., Inc., 846 N.W.2d 327 (N.D. 2014) (voluntary payment waives right to appeal)
Ramsey Fin. Corp. v. Haugland, 719 N.W.2d 346 (N.D. 2006) (payment of judgment may waive appeal)
Schwab v. Zajac, 823 N.W.2d 737 (N.D. 2012) (payment under coercion or execution does not waive appeal)
Twogood v. Wentz, 634 N.W.2d 514 (N.D. 2001) (satisfaction under sheriff’s execution not voluntary payment)
C & C Plumbing and Heating, LLP v. Williams County, 848 N.W.2d 709 (N.D. 2014) (bench-trial findings reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions fully reviewable)
Farmers Union Oil Co. of Garrison v. Smetana, 764 N.W.2d 665 (N.D. 2009) (good-faith purchaser must lack actual or constructive notice)
Swanson v. Swanson, 796 N.W.2d 614 (N.D. 2011) (constructive notice arises when purchaser omits reasonable inquiry)
Diocese of Bismarck Trust v. Ramada, Inc., 553 N.W.2d 760 (N.D. 1996) (information sufficient to assert existence of an interest gives rise to duty to investigate)