Finstad v. Ransom-Sargent Water Users, Inc.
812 N.W.2d 323
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Finstads owned 80 acres in Ransom County and leased 240 acres from Olsons; options to purchase were granted to Water District in 1997, with lease-back rights and use restrictions on land.
- Water District exercised options to purchase in 2001 and later terminated lease-back rights due to alleged trespass and use violations.
- July 2001 Water District notified Finstads of lease termination and put land lease rights up for bids.
- End of July 2001 Farm Rental Contract and an Agreement and Release discharged all Finstads’ rights to the land.
- 2003 Water District bid process awarded lease to the Finstads’ competitors; Finstads bid was rejected for technical reasons; 2006 suit filed, later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to bankruptcy, recommenced in 2009, and summary judgment granted for Water District in 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 32-12.1-10 applies to the contract claims against a political subdivision. | Finstads: statute is for torts against political subdivisions, not contracts. | Water District: § 32-12.1-10 applies to all claims under ch. 32-12.1. | Statute applies only to tort claims; contract claims governed by other limits. |
| Whether Dimond controls or distinctions between the State and political subdivisions affect applicable limitations. | Dimond governs actions against political subdivisions. | Dimond distinguished; here the party is a political subdivision, not the State. | Dimond distinguishable; ch. 32-12.1 applies to tort claims only; remand to apply appropriate contract-limitations. |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the contract claims. | Disputes over land-use restrictions and lease-back rights show triable facts. | Evidence points to breach and proper termination; no triable issues. | Genuine issues of material fact exist; summary judgment improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dimond v. State ex rel. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 637 N.W.2d 692 (ND 2001) (limited to tort claims against state; distinguishes from political subdivisions)
- Kitto v. Minot Park Dist., 224 N.W.2d 795 (ND 1974) (governmental immunity context; establishing subset of liability)
- Rosedale School Dist. No. 5 v. Towner County, 216 N.W.2d 212 (ND 1927) (recognizes statute of limitations applies to political subdivisions)
- Metropolitan R.R. Co. v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1889) (municipalities subject to limitations; public policy considerations)
- Messiha v. State, 583 N.W.2d 385 (ND 1998) (torts vs. state liability framework)
- Nelson v. Johnson, 778 N.W.2d 773 (ND 2010) (statutory interpretation and limitations analysis)