Dahly v. Anderson
2012 ND 183
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Waldock appeals summary-judgment quieting title to 25% of the minerals under a Mountrail County tract, held by successors of Edwardson Estate.
- Edwardson owned 50% of the minerals; 50% owned by United States; administrator’s deed in 1954 conveyed Edwardson’s interest to Van Horn, reserving 25% to Edwardson’s Estate.
- Deed language: conveyed all right, title, estate and interest of Edwardson at death, and reserved 25% of all minerals to the Estate with rights for exploration and required summerfallow improvements.
- Waldock’s predecessor’s successors sue to determine ownership of the reserved 25% minerals.
- District court granted summary judgment: deed equivalent to quitclaim; Duhig rule not applicable; Waldock not entitled to the reserved 25%.
- ND Supreme Court holds the deed’s plain language conveyed 25% to Waldock’s predecessor and reserved 25% to the Estate, and Duhig does not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the administrator’s deed convey 25% of minerals to Waldock’s predecessor and reserve 25% to the Estate? | Waldock argues deed overconveys or reserves beyond grant. | Estate contends deed language granted all of decedent’s interest and reserved 25% to Estate. | Deed conveyed 25% to Waldock’s predecessor and reserved 25% to Estate. |
| Is the Duhig rule applicable to the administrator’s deed here? | Duhig should apply to limit overconveyance. | Duhig is inapplicable; language controls and no overconveyance occurred. | Duhig rule not applicable. |
| Does the deed language control interpretation over labeling or warranty labels? | Labeling as quitclaim or warranty affects rights. | Granting clause language governs regardless of label. | Plain granting language controls; not overconveyance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carkuff v. Balmer, 2011 ND 60 (ND 2011) (deed language and construction focus on grantor's intent; quitclaim-like language interpreted)
- Miller v. Kloeckner, 1999 ND 190 (ND 1999) (Duhig may apply even with limited or no warranty; focus on what grantor purports to convey)
- Gawryluk v. Poynter, 2002 ND 205 (ND 2002) (applies Duhig framework to mineral conveyances)
- Sibert v. Kubas, 357 N.W.2d 495 (ND 1984) (mineral conveyance interpretations under Duhig)
- Mau v. Schwan, 460 N.W.2d 131 (ND 1990) (Duhig rationale and estoppel by deed principles)
- Acoma Oil Corp. v. Wilson, 471 N.W.2d 476 (ND 1991) (estoppel by warranty in title questions)
- Royse v. Easter Seal Soc’y, 256 N.W.2d 542 (ND 1977) (exception to grant must be to the grant, not to other provisions)
- Sittner v. Mistelski, 140 N.W.2d 360 (ND 1966) (estate conveyances and statutory provisions for private sale effect)
- Carkuff v. Balmer, 2011 ND 60 (ND 2011) (referenced for deed construction rules)