City of Glen Ullin v. Schirado, 959 N.W.2d 47

Background:

Plaintiffs City of Glen Ullin and Glen Ullin Park District own adjacent streets/alleys and lots; defendants Karen and Jerome Schirado own nearby land and grazed horses on plaintiff property.
In 2013 the Park District obtained a default judgment enjoining the Schirados from fencing and grazing on Park District lots.
In 2019 the City and Park District sued again asserting continued use of Park District lots and additional claims regarding City streets and alleys; the Schirados admitted fencing and grazing but claimed an oral permission from the City in exchange for removing garbage.
On initial appeal (Schirado I) this Court held the Park District claim was res judicata but the City claim was not; the attorney-fees award was vacated for insufficient explanation and remanded.
On remand the district court denied the Schirados’ motion for trial, granted summary judgment to the City and Park District, entered a permanent injunction, found contempt as to Park District property, and awarded the Park District $5,460 in attorney’s fees (one-half of plaintiffs’ invoice).
The Schirados appealed, arguing (1) City Council minutes satisfied the statute of frauds, (2) part performance removed the agreement from the statute of frauds, (3) their cleanup constituted valuable/substantial/permanent improvements, (4) they took possession of streets/alleys, and (5) the attorney-fees award lacked adequate explanation.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether City Council minutes satisfy statute of frauds for an interest in land	Minutes show Council permitted grazing and constitute a sufficient memorandum	Minutes do not reflect an agreement to use City streets/alleys; any writing allowed only grazing on Schultz land	Minutes did not create an enforceable agreement to use City land; no genuine issue of material fact
Whether part performance removes oral agreement from statute of frauds	Schirados’ years of cleanup and trash removal constituted part performance	Schirados failed to prove an agreement existed or that acts are only explainable by that agreement	Part performance doctrine not satisfied; no admissible evidence of an agreement or acts consistent only with it
Whether cleanup constituted valuable, substantial, permanent improvements	Cleanup was a valuable and permanent improvement supporting enforcement	Cleanup was conclusory, not shown to be substantial/permanent/improvements to City property	Cleanup was conclusory and insufficient to meet the valuable/substantial/permanent improvements requirement
Whether defendants’ possession/use estopped plaintiffs from enforcing property rights	Continuous use and control of the streets/alleys established possession and rights to continue use	Possession evidence does not establish agreement or exclusive use of City property	No material factual dispute shown that Schirados obtained possession that supports an equitable property interest
Whether district court adequately explained attorney’s fees award	Schirados: award lacks sufficient explanation and City cannot get contempt fees	Plaintiffs: award to Park District (half the invoice) was for contempt-related work; City not awarded contempt fees	District court provided a discernible basis: Park District awarded $5,460 as fees for contempt; City not awarded contempt fees; explanation adequate and not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Klein v. Sletto, 889 N.W.2d 918 (N.D. 2017) (de novo review and summary judgment standard)
Rooks v. Robb, 871 N.W.2d 468 (N.D. 2015) (summary judgment when only question of law remains)
Hamilton v. Woll, 823 N.W.2d 754 (N.D. 2012) (summary judgment standards)
Williston Co-Op Credit Union v. Fossum, 459 N.W.2d 548 (N.D. 1990) (part performance can remove oral contract from statute of frauds; improvements must be valuable/substantial/permanent)
Poyzer v. Amenia Seed & Grain Co., 409 N.W.2d 107 (N.D. 1987) (part performance doctrine)
Vasichek v. Thorsen, 271 N.W.2d 555 (N.D. 1978) (requirements for improvements as part performance)
Parceluk v. Knudtson, 139 N.W.2d 864 (N.D. 1966) (part payment plus improvements may remove statute of frauds)
Bouten v. Richard Miller Homes, Inc., 321 N.W.2d 895 (Minn. 1982) (subscription/signature under statute of frauds)
Greenwood v. Klem, 450 N.W.2d 745 (N.D. 1990) (district court need not detail fee calculations so long as basis is discernible)