Christensen v. N.D. Dep't of Human Services
2011 ND 77
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Property in Bottineau County (169 acres) originated with deed to William Swanson and Glenn Swanson as joint tenants (1963); Lorraine Swanson signed as accommodation only to waive homestead claim.
- Glenn Swanson, attorney for the family, prepared/recorded key deeds and managed the property; 1969 mortgage to Arlo Swanson (Glenn’s brother) was recorded.
- William Swanson died in 1999; Lorraine Swanson, as personal representative, conveyed the property to herself as trustee in 2000, then to the Swanson children with a life estate reserved to Lorraine in 2003.
- In 2001, Glenn Swanson asserted ownership at William Swanson’s inurnment, informing Robert Swanson he owned the property.
- Swanson children recorded their deed in 2003, after Lorraine’s conveyance, claiming good-faith purchase under ND recording statute.
- Trial court quieted title in Swanson children; on appeal, issue focused on whether the children acted in good faith and, if not, whether they had valuable consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Swanson children were good-faith purchasers under §47-19-41 | Swanson children hadde actual notice via Glenn’s statements; deed valid despite quiet title. | Glenn’s claim should not affect children’s good-faith status; they paid (or should have paid) valuable consideration. | No; children not good-faith purchasers due to failure to inquire. |
| Whether the Swanson children provided valuable consideration to Lorraine’s trust | Ten dollars plus family arrangement constitutes valuable consideration. | Consideration not substantial; family arrangement not equivalent to value. | Need remand to re-evaluate whether consideration was substantial. |
| Whether equitable doctrines (laches/estoppel) apply to bar Glenn’s claim | Estoppel and laches could apply given Glenn’s silence and delay. | Equitable defenses not applicable if good-faith status exists; record does not support estoppel/laches. | Equitable defenses do not save Glenn; court comments on estoppel/laches remanded for further consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt Trust Estate v. Kiker, 269 N.W.2d 377 (ND 1978) (duty to inquire when aware of adverse interest)
- Pierce Tp. of Barnes County v. Ernie, 74 N.D. 16, 19 N.W.2d 755 (ND 1945) (notice can arise from asserting opposing right; need for inquiry)
- Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Advance Realty Co., 78 N.W.2d 705 (ND 1956) (constructive notice from failure to inquire)
- Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Hall, 322 N.W.2d 233 (ND 1982) (estoppel applicable where reliance on misrepresentation; four-factor test)
- Nygaard v. Robinson, 341 N.W.2d 349 (ND 1983) (information need not be complete; sufficient to put prudent person on inquiry)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 435 N.W.2d 687 (ND 1989) (valuable consideration must be substantial, not nominal; burden to show value beyond deed)