Come Big or Stay Home, LLC v. EOG Resources, Inc., 2012 ND 91

Bevan granted Pifer a durable power of attorney in 2001 and later a purchase option in 2004 to buy Bevan's farmland for $107,569, exercisable within two years after Bevan's death; the option was recorded in 2004 and stated it bound heirs and estates.
Bevan executed a warranty deed creating a joint tenancy with right of survivorship in the subject property with McDermott in 2009; Bevan died in 2010.
Pifer notified McDermott in 2010 of his intent to exercise the option and tendered payment; McDermott rejected the cashier’s check questioning capacity and conveyance.
Pifer sued McDermott for specific performance and asserted intentional interference with economic advantage; McDermott counterclaimed alleging lack of consideration, unconscionability, and various fiduciary claims.
The district court granted partial summary judgment for Pifer, but certified the judgment as final under Rule 54(b); the court did not resolve all issues, including unadjudicated damages and the interference claim.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding the district court abused its discretion in certifying the partial summary judgment as final under Rule 54(b) and directed vacatur of that certification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 54(b) certification was appropriate.	Pifer argues certification is justified due to prejudice from delay.	McDermott argues delay and hardship justify immediate review.	Certification improperly granted; abuse of discretion.
Whether the unadjudicated intentional interference claim affects finality.	Pifer contends damages remain unresolved independent of the option's validity.	McDermott argues the unresolved claim is intertwined with the certified judgment.	Unresolved claim intertwined; affects finality; requires vacatur.
Whether the district court should have considered all claims before certifying final judgment.	Pifer sought a single appeal after resolution of all claims.	McDermott argued for efficiency and early review.	Court found no unusual hardship; improper to sever and certify.

Citizens State Bank v. Symington, 780 N.W.2d 676 (N.D. 2010) (review of Rule 54(b) certification requires balancing factors; not routinely granted)
Union State Bank v. Woell, 563 N.W.2d 400 (N.D. 1997) (district court abuse when misapplied Rule 54(b) standards; sua sponte review of certification)
Bulman v. Hulstrand Construction Co., Inc., 503 N.W.2d 240 (N.D. 1993) (recognizes rare, harsh cases warranting immediate review)
Gissel v. Kenmare Twp., 479 N.W.2d 876 (N.D. 1992) (purpose and limits of Rule 54(b) certification; avoid piecemeal appeals)
Janavaras v. Nat’l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co., 449 N.W.2d 578 (N.D. 1989) (claims closely intertwined; assess finality and certification)
Woell v. Walle Mut. Ins. Co., 357 N.W.2d 238 (N.D. 1988) (64(b) certification inappropriate where claims are intertwined; abuse if inappropriate)