Desert Partners IV, L.P. v. Benson
2014 ND 192
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Desert Partners sued to quiet title to certain mineral interests in McKenzie County; John Benson (self-represented) answered and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
- Both Desert Partners and Benson moved for summary judgment; Benson requested oral argument and filed a notice of hearing for Oct. 30, 2013.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Desert Partners on Dec. 3, 2013, stating a hearing was held Nov. 1, 2013, but no parties appeared.
- Benson attempted to appeal: he emailed an unsigned notice and faxed a signed notice on Feb. 3, 2014, then mailed a signed notice on Feb. 4; the mailed document was recorded as filed after the statutory deadline.
- Desert Partners moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely; the Supreme Court considered (1) whether Benson’s fax constituted a timely filing for jurisdictional purposes and (2) whether Benson was improperly denied a hearing on his summary judgment motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Benson’s notice of appeal was timely / whether the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | Desert Partners: mailed notice was not filed before deadline; fax/email filings are not acceptable; appeal untimely | Benson: he submitted a signed fax before deadline (and mailed original) so appeal should be timely | Court denied dismissal — treated the fax as timely because rules governing filing methods for self-represented litigants were ambiguous, so court exercised jurisdiction |
| Whether Benson was entitled to an oral hearing on his summary judgment motion and whether denial required reversal | Desert Partners: no response/hearing required; argued summary judgment appropriate | Benson: he timely requested a hearing, filed a notice of hearing, and did not receive proper notice of any rescheduled hearing | Court reversed summary judgment and remanded for a hearing — district court failed to properly notice the November 1 hearing and thus effectively denied Benson the required oral argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Dietz v. Kautzman, 686 N.W.2d 110 (N.D. 2004) (jurisdictional prerequisites for appeals)
- State v. Neigum, 369 N.W.2d 375 (N.D. 1985) (timeliness of appellate filing is jurisdictional)
- Filler v. Bragg, 559 N.W.2d 225 (N.D. 1997) (mailing is not filing under North Dakota law)
- Anton v. Anton, 442 N.W.2d 445 (N.D. 1989) (when a party timely requests a hearing, the court must hold one)
- Dehn v. Otter Tail Power Co., 248 N.W.2d 851 (N.D. 1976) (preference to decide cases on the merits when reasonably possible)
- Paxton v. Wiebe, 584 N.W.2d 72 (N.D. 1998) (favoring resolution on merits where rule ambiguity could bar an appeal)