Gasic v. Bosworth, 2014 ND 85

In Aug 2013, Vlad Gasic sued several occupants, including Mark Bosworth, seeking eviction and/or sheriff-assisted removal of defendants from property in Epping, ND, alleging he was record title owner and defendants were unauthorized occupants not paying utilities.
Defendants answered and interposed a counterclaim; plaintiff alleged he had served the three-day notice required by N.D.C.C. § 47-32-02.
After a Sept 11, 2013 hearing, the district court entered an "order for eviction" requiring vacation by Sept 16, 2013.
On Sept 16, defendants moved to stay the eviction, requested a hearing, and filed a notice of appeal; the court entered a stay of eviction the same day.
Bosworth alone pursued this appeal; no appellee brief was filed, and no transcript of the Sept 11 hearing was provided to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held the eviction order was not a final, appealable judgment because the district court did not resolve the counterclaim and contemplated further proceedings (the stay referenced a future hearing), so the appeal was dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appealability / finality of eviction order	Gasic treated order as final eviction judgment	Bosworth appealed the Sept 11 order	Order was not final or appealable; appeal dismissed
Whether court intended final judgment	Order granted restitution; plaintiff relied on statutory eviction remedy	District court later stayed eviction and referenced future hearing	Stay and unresolved counterclaim show court did not intend final judgment
Ownership / title to property	Gasic asserted record title and right to possession	Bosworth contested Gasic's ownership and authority to evict	Court did not decide title on a final basis; issue remains unadjudicated on appeal
Adequacy of eviction notice / due process	Gasic alleged he served required 3-day notice under § 47-32-02	Bosworth argued notice was deficient and due process violated	Court declined to reach merits because order was not final; procedural defects not resolved on appeal

Kouba v. Febco, Inc., 583 N.W.2d 810 (N.D. 1998) (appealability is jurisdictional; court may dismiss sua sponte)
State v. North Dakota Ins. Reserve Fund, 822 N.W.2d 38 (N.D. 2012) (only final judgments or statutory exceptions are appealable)
Working Capital #1, LLC v. Quality Auto Body, Inc., 817 N.W.2d 346 (N.D. 2012) (2009 recodification of eviction statute did not substantially change prior law)
Aurora Med. Park, LLC v. Kidney & Hypertension Ctr., PLC, 784 N.W.2d 151 (N.D. 2010) (eviction is an expedited, equitable proceeding limited to possession)
H-T Enter. v. Antelope Creek Bison Ranch, 694 N.W.2d 691 (N.D. 2005) (no-counterclaim rule in eviction actions and scope of defenses)
Anderson v. Heinze, 643 N.W.2d 24 (N.D. 2002) (possession is the primary issue in eviction actions)
United Bank of Bismarck v. Trout, 480 N.W.2d 742 (N.D. 1992) (eviction actions often implicate title issues)