Higgins v. Lund, 17 N.W.3d 828

Plaintiffs (the Higgins-Devney parties) and Defendants (the Lund-Eide parties) disputed ownership and proceeds from certain oil and gas mineral interests in Williams County, North Dakota.
At issue were the interpretation of a 1964 warranty deed and a 1952 royalty deed, both of which affected how mineral rights and royalty interests should be divided among the parties.
An initial bench trial in 2018 resolved certain deed interpretation questions, but further summary judgment motions were required regarding the royalty deed.
The district court found the deeds ambiguous and relied on extrinsic evidence, ultimately interpreting both in favor of the Higgins-Devney Appellees.
The court entered multiple orders and partial judgments, but the final, appealable judgment resolving all claims was not entered until January 2024.
The Lund-Eide Appellants challenged the court’s interpretations and division of proceeds, while Appellees argued the appeal was untimely; the Supreme Court found appellate jurisdiction proper.

Issue	Plaintiffs' Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Interpretation of the 1964 warranty deed	Reservation applied to both top and bottom parcels, intending a co-equal 50/50 mineral split	Reservation applied only to the bottom parcel; top parcel conveyed full interest	Ambiguous deed; extrinsic evidence shows reservation applied to both parcels (co-equal 50/50 split)
Interpretation of the 1952 royalty deed	Conveys a floating royalty, based on proportionate reduction tied to underlying lease	Parties stipulated in 2018 trial to a different (fixed) interpretation	No valid, binding stipulation shown; 1952 deed conveys a floating royalty
Timeliness of Appeal	Appeal untimely due to earlier judgments	Appeal timely, as only January 2024 judgment resolved all claims	Previous orders not final/appealable; January 2024 judgment triggered appeal period; appeal timely
Calculation/Division of Oil & Gas Proceeds	Proper under court’s deed/royalty interpretations	Erroneous due to alleged errors in deed/royalty interpretation	Division affirmed, as interpretations were correct

Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass’n v. Briese, 192 N.W.2d 170 (N.D. 1971) (time for filing appeals is mandatory and jurisdictional)
Wells Cnty. Water Res. Dist. v. Solberg, 434 N.W.2d 577 (N.D. 1989) (defining final judgment for appealability)
Egeland v. Cont’l Res., Inc., 616 N.W.2d 861 (N.D. 2000) (contract interpretation standards: whole document, intent)
Nichols v. Goughnour, 820 N.W.2d 740 (N.D. 2012) (explaining Duhig rule: over-conveyance in mineral deeds)
Ogren v. Sandaker, 893 N.W.2d 750 (N.D. 2017) (distinguishing between fixed and floating royalty interests)
Aaker v. Aaker, 338 N.W.2d 645 (N.D. 1983) (enforceability of oral stipulations requires clear assent on record)