Hall v. Hall, 950 N.W.2d 168

Robert M. Hall sued to quiet title to a 1.04% non‑participating royalty interest (NPRI) he says he bought from his father, Myles Hall, in 1988. Record title, however, remained in Myles Hall’s name after his 1992 death.
In 2011 a separate quiet‑title suit under North Dakota’s abandoned mineral statutes resulted in a 2015 judgment declaring the Estate of Myles Hall the owner of the 1.04% NPRI; Robert participated in that suit only as personal representative of the Estate.
In 2018 Robert sued the Estate of John F. Hall, Deborah Hall, and Leslie Hall (the Hall defendants) to quiet title in his name; Leslie and Deborah answered and sought summary judgment asserting res judicata/collateral estoppel; John Hall initially defaulted.
The district court entered a default judgment against John Hall in August 2018, later vacated that default after John’s death and substitution of his estate; the court granted summary judgment to Leslie and Deborah on res judicata grounds and dismissed Robert’s claim.
On appeal the Supreme Court considered (1) whether vacating the default against John’s estate was an abuse of discretion, and (2) whether res judicata barred Robert’s quiet‑title claim asserting ownership by purchase prior to the 2011 action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in vacating the default judgment against John Hall	Vacatur was improper; service presumption unrebutted and publication sufficient for in rem action	Motion to vacate was timely, other codefendants had meritorious defenses, justice favors merits	No abuse: court permissibly vacated default to allow merits disposition
Whether res judicata bars Robert’s quiet‑title claim that he purchased the NPRI in 1988	The 2015 judgment only resolved the abandoned‑minerals dispute and did not adjudicate heirs’ individual interests; Robert held his interest before the 2011 action and did not litigate in an individual capacity	The 2015 judgment was a final decision binding on successors in interest and could have addressed Robert’s claim; privity exists among heirs	Res judicata does not apply: prior judgment did not adjudicate heirs’ individual title; Robert’s claim survives; summary judgment was erroneous

Bickler v. Happy House Movers, L.L.P., 2018 ND 177, 915 N.W.2d 690 (N.D. 2018) (standard for appellate review of Rule 60(b) vacatur of default)
Key Energy Servs., LLC v. Ewing Constr. Co., Inc., 2018 ND 121, 911 N.W.2d 319 (N.D. 2018) (vacatur considerations and liberality in default cases)
Gepner v. Fujicolor Processing, Inc., 2001 ND 207, 637 N.W.2d 681 (N.D. 2001) (factors guiding vacatur of default judgments)
Missouri Breaks, LLC v. Burns, 2010 ND 221, 791 N.W.2d 33 (N.D. 2010) (elements of res judicata/claim preclusion)
Gerrity Bakken, LLC v. Oasis Petroleum N. Am., LLC, 2018 ND 180, 915 N.W.2d 677 (N.D. 2018) (privity and limits on binding effect of quiet‑title judgments)
Sprynczynatyk v. Celley, 486 N.W.2d 230 (N.D. 1992) (party capacity and res judicata; representative vs. individual capacity)
Peterson v. Jasmanka, 2014 ND 40, 842 N.W.2d 920 (N.D. 2014) (distinguishing abandoned‑minerals statutory procedure from subsequent quiet‑title actions)