Hamilton v. Woll
823 N.W.2d 754
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Finlay F. Hamilton acquired 80 mineral acres in Bowman County by a 1952 mineral deed.
- Between 1953 and 1956 Hamilton executed 15 deeds on preprinted Mineral Deed forms but inserted in the blank spaces the undivided fractional royalty interests.
- Hamilton’s residence is listed as Tulsa, Oklahoma, and warranty clauses were struck out with typewritten Xs.
- Hamilton died intestate in 1956; his estate was probated in Texas.
- In 2010 Hamilton’s grandchildren filed suit to quiet title and to declare the 15 deeds conveyed royalty rather than mineral interests; they moved for summary judgment with supporting extrinsic evidence.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, concluded the deeds were ambiguous but conveyed royalty interests as a matter of law, and remanded for further proceedings; Rowland moved to vacate under Rule 60(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are there genuine issues of material fact on Hamilton's intent? | Hamilton argues the deeds convey royalty interests, not minerals. | Rowland contends the deeds' language and extrinsic evidence show intent to transfer mineral interests. | Issues of fact exist; not appropriate to decide as a matter of law. |
| Was summary judgment proper given ambiguity and need for extrinsic evidence to resolve intent? | Deeds’ framing and language show a royalty conveyance; extrinsic evidence confirms intent. | Extrinsic evidence is insufficient to resolve intent on summary judgment; should not convert dual possible inferences into law. | The case is not amenable to summary judgment; remand for trial on the same record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams Co. v. Hamilton, 427 N.W.2d 822 (N.D. 1988) (deeds with royalty language are ambiguous; intent to be determined with extrinsic evidence)
- Bohn v. Johnson, 371 N.W.2d 781 (N.D. 1985) (ambiguous grantor intent requires extrinsic evidence)
- Malloy v. Boettcher, 334 N.W.2d 8 (N.D. 1983) (primary purpose in construing a deed is to ascertain grantor’s intent)
- Mueller v. Stangeland, 340 N.W.2d 450 (N.D. 1983) (use contract interpretation standards to aid deed interpretation)
- Saltsman v. Sharp, 2011 ND 172 (N.D. 2011) (summary judgment requires no genuine issues of material fact; inferences are key)
- Heng v. Rotech Med. Corp., 2004 ND 204 (N.D. 2004) (reasonable minds could differ on inferences; jury-like fact questions may preclude SJ)
- Smetana v. Farmers Union Oil Co., 2009 ND 74 (N.D. 2009) (summary judgment not proper for mini-trial of disputed inferences)
- Arndt v. Maki, 2012 ND 55 (N.D. 2012) (de novo review of summary judgment; factual inferences reviewed)
- Wenco v. EOG Resources, Inc., 2012 ND 219 (N.D. 2012) (summary judgment standards applied; questions of intent and extrinsic evidence)