958 N.W.2d 155
N.D.2020Background
- The Glen Ullin Park District owns undeveloped platted lots; the City of Glen Ullin controls adjacent undeveloped streets and alleys.
- In 2013 the Park District sued Karen and Jerome Schirado for fencing and grazing on Park District lots; the Schirados did not respond and a default injunction issued.
- In 2019 the Park District and the City sued again, alleging continued violations of the 2013 judgment and adding claims about the City’s streets and alleys (not litigated in 2013).
- The Schirados admitted fencing and grazing but asserted an oral agreement with the City Council allowing grazing in exchange for removing garbage, and argued partial performance would except the agreement from the statute of frauds.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City and Park District, held the whole action barred by res judicata, enjoined the Schirados from placing obstructions on Park and City property, found contempt for violating the 2013 judgment, and awarded $11,106.85 in fees/costs.
- The Supreme Court affirmed injunctive relief for Park District property (res judicata applies), reversed as to City property (res judicata inapplicable), vacated the fee award for clarification, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars relitigation of claims about Park District property | Park District: 2019 claims are the same as 2013; prior judgment bars relitigation | Schirados: (implicitly) defenses not raised in 2013; but default limits challenges | Held: Yes—claims about the Park District lots are claim-precluded by the 2013 judgment |
| Whether res judicata bars claims about City streets and alleys | City: entire dispute arises from same facts so res judicata should apply to City property too | Schirados: City property was not litigated in 2013; res judicata shouldn’t extend to different property | Held: No—res judicata does not extend to City property not in the prior action; reversal as to City relief |
| Whether the Schirados’ alleged oral council agreement (partial performance) precludes summary judgment | Plaintiffs: prior judgment and res judicata dispose of claims | Schirados: oral agreement with City Council and substantial partial performance excepts it from statute of frauds | Held: Court did not resolve on summary judgment; issue survives as to City property and requires further proceedings |
| Validity and amount of attorney’s fees/sanctions for contempt | Plaintiffs: sought fees for contempt and violations of the 2013 judgment | Schirados: challenged amount and allocation; record insufficient to review | Held: Contempt finding affirmed, but fee award vacated and remanded for the district court to explain allocation and sanction basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Fettig v. Estate of Fettig, 934 N.W.2d 547 (N.D. 2019) (res judicata bars relitigation of prior claim to same property)
- Riverwood Commercial Park, LLC v. Standard Oil Co., 729 N.W.2d 101 (N.D. 2007) (distinguishes claim preclusion and issue preclusion)
- Hofsommer v. Hofsommer Excavating, Inc., 488 N.W.2d 380 (N.D. 1992) (res judicata review is a question of law fully reviewable on appeal)
- Arnold v. Trident Res., LLC, 942 N.W.2d 465 (N.D. 2020) (standards for contempt and remanding sanction awards for explanation)