Huebner v. Furlinger
2017 ND 145
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Ronald and Sherry Huebner (surface owners) sought to quiet title to a one-fourth mineral interest reserved by their predecessors; they initiated lapse-notice proceedings in 2006.
- Title records show a 1982 personal representative’s deed distributing the mineral interest to Elsie M. Furlinger and Janet Hill; the deed listed Elsie’s street address but omitted a zip code and did not list a zip for Janet.
- The Huebners published statutorily required notices in the county paper and mailed copies: to Elsie at 2925 El Prado Blvd., Tampa, FL 33629 (they added zip 33629) and to Janet at Sun City Center, FL.
- A 2009 quiet-title default judgment in favor of the Huebners was vacated after challengers (Morans) showed publication service was ineffective; the Morans then counterclaimed.
- At a bench trial the district court found the Huebners failed to comply with N.D.C.C. ch. 38-18.1: the mailing to Elsie did not match the address of record (which lacked a zip), and Janet’s address was actually shown of record in older documents.
- The Supreme Court affirmed: (1) mailing to an address with a supplemented zip code did not satisfy the statute because the zip was not shown of record or supported by evidence; (2) sufficient record evidence showed Janet Hill had an address of record, so a mailing-by-publication only was insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mailing notice to Elsie M. Furlinger at an address the plaintiffs supplemented with a zip code satisfied N.D.C.C. § 38-18.1-06(2) | Huebner: supplementing the recorded street address with the correct zip code (33629) constitutes mailing to the address of record and complies with the statute; reliance on record evidence and searches was reasonable | Morans: the statute requires mailing to the address as shown of record; plaintiffs offered no evidence the added zip code was part of the recorded address or otherwise correct | Held: Affirmed district court — plaintiffs did not comply. Surface owner must mail to the address exactly as shown of record; supplementing with an unsupported zip code failed statutory mailing requirement. |
| Whether plaintiffs conducted a "reasonable inquiry" or whether an address for Janet Hill was shown of record (so mailing was required) | Huebner: the most recent recorded document (1982 deed) did not show Janet’s address, so no address was of record and plaintiffs reasonably searched and mailed to last known locality | Morans: older recorded instruments (quitclaim deed and 1982 petition for administration) showed Janet’s address; plaintiffs therefore had an address of record and failed to mail to it | Held: Affirmed district court — sufficient records showed Janet Hill had an address of record (1952 quitclaim and 1982 petition); plaintiffs failed to comply with mailing requirement and cannot rely solely on publication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Capps v. Weflen, 855 N.W.2d 637 (N.D. 2014) (describing abandoned-mineral statutory scheme and mailing requirement)
- Johnson v. Taliaferro, 793 N.W.2d 804 (N.D. 2011) (de novo review of statutory interpretation for N.D.C.C. ch. 38-18.1)
- Nelson v. McAlester Fuel Co., 891 N.W.2d 126 (N.D. 2017) (address-of-record must be the most recent recorded address)
- Sorenson v. Felton, 793 N.W.2d 799 (N.D. 2011) (abandoned-mineral statute amendments and notice principles)
- Breyer v. Gale, 207 N.W. 46 (N.D. 1925) (doctrine of constructive notice not applied where names on record are similar but not identical)
- Turk v. Benson, 152 N.W. 354 (N.D. 1915) (similar holding limiting constructive notice from name variants)