Hageness v. Davis
2017 ND 132
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (heirs/successors of Walter Larson) filed a quiet-title action in Oct 2015 challenging 1950s deeds that transferred Larson’s interests in Mountrail County property to the defendants’ predecessors.
- Meiers asserted unbroken surface title since 1972; Davises asserted unbroken mineral title for over 60 years and active possession via oil & gas leases since at least 2005.
- Defendants moved to dismiss (12(b)) and/or for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time‑barred under N.D.C.C. § 28‑01‑04 (20‑year limit). Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment and requested but did not schedule oral argument.
- The district court held a February 11, 2016 hearing, stayed discovery, and thereafter treated the pleadings under summary‑judgment standards.
- On March 29, 2016 (judgment April 7; amended April 15), the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice as barred by the 20‑year statute and for failure to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the quiet‑title action is barred by the 20‑year statute, N.D.C.C. § 28‑01‑04 | Plaintiffs contend various defects in 1950s transfers, and assert tolling/exceptions (estoppel, fraud, fiduciary abuse, undue influence, lack of notice) that would avoid the limitations bar | Defendants say plaintiffs produced no competent evidence showing seizure/possession within 20 years or any valid tolling/exception; thus statute bars the claim | Court affirmed: plaintiffs failed to show a genuine issue of material fact; claim is time‑barred under § 28‑01‑04 |
| Whether plaintiffs’ procedural complaints (denied oral argument; discovery stay) justify reversal | Plaintiffs argue they were denied requested oral argument and discovery needed to oppose summary judgment | Defendants note plaintiffs never properly scheduled oral argument and the protective order only stayed discovery; issues were argued at Feb hearing and plaintiffs raised no contemporaneous objection | Court held denial was not error; hearing covered the interrelated issues and plaintiffs did not preserve a need for further argument or discovery |
| Whether the district court improperly amended its judgment post‑entry | Plaintiffs contend the court changed its ruling after entry | Defendants argue the April 13 order/amended judgment simply clarified scope and corrected oversight under Rule 60(a) | Court held amendment was a permissible clerical/clarifying correction under Rule 60(a) and was entered while district court retained jurisdiction |
| Standard of review and conversion to summary judgment | Plaintiffs sought dismissal under 12(b)(6) and moved for summary judgment | Defendants relied on materials outside pleadings and statute‑of‑limitations defenses, prompting summary‑judgment treatment | Court applied de novo review and summary‑judgment standards and concluded no genuine issue of material fact existed in plaintiffs’ favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Markgraf v. Welker, 873 N.W.2d 26 (2015 ND 303) (summary‑judgment standard; § 28‑01‑04 applies to quiet‑title actions)
- James v. Griffin, 626 N.W.2d 704 (2001 ND 90) (20‑year seizure/possession requirement in quiet‑title suits)
- Wehner v. Schroeder, 335 N.W.2d 563 (N.D. 1983) (statute of limitations applies to real‑property recovery actions)
- Haas v. Bursinger, 470 N.W.2d 222 (N.D. 1991) (limitations bar in property disputes)
- Mills v. City of Grand Forks, 813 N.W.2d 574 (2012 ND 56) (conversion of 12(b) motion to summary judgment when outside materials are considered)
- Zutz v. Kamrowski, 787 N.W.2d 286 (2010 ND 155) (same)