937 N.W.2d 508
N.D.2020Background
- In 2013 Hauer sold land to Kurt and Lois Zerr but the deed contained a reservation: Grantor reserves the right to hunt with ingress/egress (walking only), limited to family/friends, first two weeks of pheasant season, no fee hunting.
- The Zerrs later denied Hauer hunting access, citing N.D.C.C. § 47-05-17 (prohibiting severance of hunting access from the surface estate).
- Hauer sued seeking reformation of the deed to reflect the parties' intent to allow his hunting access; he also alleged fraud by the Zerrs.
- The Zerrs moved to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), arguing the reservation unlawfully severed hunting rights and reformation was unavailable.
- The district court concluded the deed unlawfully severed hunting rights under § 47-05-17, the deed unambiguously reflected the parties' agreement, Hauer alleged a mutual mistake of law arising from ignorance (not a misapprehension), and any fraud alleged was fraud in the inducement (remedy: rescission). The complaint was dismissed.
- The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding reformation unavailable where the alleged mistake was ignorance of the law and reformation is not a remedy for fraud in the inducement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deed may be reformed for mutual mistake of law | Hauer: parties intended to reserve hunting access; deed does not reflect true intent due to mutual mistake of law | Zerr: reservation unlawfully severs hunting rights under § 47-05-17; pleadings show ignorance of law so reformation not allowed | Court: Dismissed — alleged mistake was ignorance of law, not misapprehension; reformation unavailable |
| Whether deed reservation violates § 47-05-17 (severance prohibition) | Hauer: parties intended access and could have used alternative means (e.g., lease) to allow access | Zerr: reservation expressly severs hunting rights from surface estate and is prohibited by statute | Court: Deed reservation severed hunting rights and violated § 47-05-17 |
| Whether fraud allegations permit reformation | Hauer: Zerrs promised access and misled him; reformation appropriate for fraud | Zerr: Alleged fraud is fraud in the inducement (not execution); remedy is rescission, not reformation | Court: Allegations amount to fraud in the inducement; remedy is rescission — claim seeking only reformation fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Hovden v. Lind, 301 N.W.2d 374 (N.D. 1981) (recognizes reformation may be based on mutual mistake of law but limits relief to misapprehensions of a law known to parties)
- Cokins v. Frandsen, 141 N.W.2d 796 (N.D. 1966) (supports reformation principles under state statutes)
- Continental Res., Inc. v. N.D. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 935 N.W.2d 780 (N.D. 2019) (12(b)(6) dismissal reviewed de novo; complaint must not disclose impossibility of relief)
- Heart River Partners v. Goetzfried, 703 N.W.2d 330 (N.D. 2005) (distinguishes fraud in execution from fraud in inducement; reformation available for some frauds, rescission for inducement)