Holverson v. Lundberg, 2015 ND 225

Holverson sued to quiet title to a Burleigh County tract, alleging he had a 1978 contract for deed and tendered full payment by cashier’s check after receiving statutory cancellation notice.
Lundberg, as trustee, sent a statutory cancellation notice after Holverson defaulted and alleged Holverson had earlier received amendments (1997) and made misrepresentations; she counterclaimed to rescind or for damages based on fraud.
The district court granted Holverson summary judgment: dismissed Lundberg’s counterclaims, directed Lundberg to accept the cashier’s check, convey title, and quiet title in Holverson’s favor.
The court found Lundberg’s fraud allegations conclusory, held Holverson cured the default within the statutory six-month cure period, and ruled Lundberg waived claims to damages and could only cancel the contract.
After entry of the summary-judgment order, a judgment was entered incorporating that disposition and awarding Holverson "reasonable" attorney fees, but the district court had not yet determined the amount of those fees.
Lundberg appealed; the Supreme Court considered whether it had jurisdiction given the unresolved attorney-fee amount and the absence of a Rule 54(b) certification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the order granting summary judgment appealable?	Holverson: judgment incorporates order; case is final enough to review.	Lundberg: appealed the summary-judgment order (but followed by judgment).	An order granting summary judgment is not directly appealable; treated as appeal from a subsequently entered consistent judgment.
Does the subsequent judgment constitute a final, appealable judgment when attorney-fee amount remains undetermined?	Holverson: entry of judgment resolving merits makes appeal proper.	Lundberg: appealed before fee amount was fixed; no Rule 54(b) certification.	Judgment is not final or appealable because attorney-fee amount remains to be determined and Rule 54(b) certification is absent.
Can this Court hear the appeal despite unresolved post-judgment matters?	Holverson: impliedly no additional matters will change merits.	Lundberg: asserted merits support reversal but procedural finality controls.	Court declines to reach merits; jurisdictional finality required; appeal dismissed.
Is Rule 54(b) certification present or appropriate to permit immediate appeal?	N/A	Lundberg did not obtain 54(b) certification; record doesn’t show this is an "infrequent harsh case" requiring certification.	No 54(b) certification; not appropriate here; piecemeal appeals discouraged.

In re Estate of Hollingsworth, 809 N.W.2d 328 (N.D. 2012) (framework for finality and Rule 54(b) analysis)
Hale v. Ward County, 818 N.W.2d 697 (N.D. 2012) (order granting summary judgment is not appealable; treat as appeal from subsequent consistent judgment)
Farmers Union Oil Co. v. Smetana, 764 N.W.2d 665 (N.D. 2009) (same principle on non-appealability of summary-judgment order)
Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 785 N.W.2d 863 (N.D. 2010) (two-step finality inquiry and Rule 54(b) requirements)
Matter of Estate of Stensland, 574 N.W.2d 203 (N.D. 1998) (discussing Rule 54(b) and policy against piecemeal appeals)