Entzel v. Moritz Sport and Marine
2014 ND 12
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Entzel prepaid Moritz $612 for a May 15–Oct 1, 2011 marina slip but did not use it at startup due to flood threat.
- Moritz instructed removal of all boats on May 26, 2011; Entzel was not notified she could later return the boat.
- Other Moritz customers used their slips from mid-June 2011 until freeze, while Entzel did not.
- District court found a force majeure clause (Paragraph 10) relieved Moritz of liability and allowed no payment for unprovided services.
- District court valued the slip’s fair use as two-thirds of the charged amount ($408) and ordered a $204 refund; it denied attorney fees.
- This Court reverses the refund, affirms denial of attorney fees, and concludes Entzel was not a prevailing party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the force majeure clause absolves Moritz of liability and allocates risk | Entzel seeks full payment; Moritz argues clause relieves liability | Clause 10 relieves Moritz from performance due to flood-related delays | Force majeure relieved Moritz and allocated risk to Entzel |
| Whether Entzel was entitled to a full or partial refund of prepaid rent | Entzel asserts partial/full refund for unperformed period | Moritz argues no liability for nonperformance | District court’s $204 refund is reversed; Entzel not entitled to refund beyond contract interpretation |
| Whether Entzel is a prevailing party eligible for attorney fees | Entzel should recover fees as prevailing plaintiff | Moritz prevailed on the force majeure interpretation | Entzel not a prevailing plaintiff; no attorney fees |
| What governs the allocation of risk and interpretation of the force majeure clause | Contract language ambiguous or exculpatory of Entzel | Clear allocation of risk to Entzel via Paragraph 10 | Clause 10 allocates risk to Entzel; Moritz not liable for nonperformance |
| Whether contract interpretation is question of law or fact | Interpretation should reflect mutual intent | Language alone determines intent | Contract interpretation is a question of law when language resolves intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders v. Gravel Products, Inc., 755 N.W.2d 826 (N.D. 2008) (clear-error standard for factual findings; contract interpretation principles)
- Langer v. Bartholomay, 745 N.W.2d 649 (N.D. 2008) (leases construed against the lessor; intent from writing)
- Mayville-Portland Sch. Dist. No. 10 v. C. L. Linfoot Co., 261 N.W.2d 907 (N.D. 1978) (tests for allocation of risk and force majeure impact on liability)
- Lund v. Lund, 795 N.W.2d 318 (N.D. 2011) (treatment of appeals from judgments and consistency of judgments)