Jensen v. Deaver
2013 ND 47
N.D.2013Background
- In 1981, contiguous landowners Lester, Johnson, and Langwald agreed to dig an artesian well on Johnson's land to supply water to all three properties, with pipelines to each home.
- The well was on Johnson's land; each party paid approximately $3,635.22 toward drilling; costs for running pipelines were not clearly allocated in writing.
- In 1985, Eldridge (Johnson’s daughter) obtained Johnson’s land; Niles acquired Eldridge’s land, and Langwald sold to Dragseth; Niles paid $908.74 to each of Lester, Eldridge, and Dragseth, approximately a quarter of the drilling cost, for the original drilling expense.
- Niles paid the entire cost of running a pipeline from the well to his house; Eldridge testified she believed the payments were compensation for land damage from the pipeline.
- Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that an easement existed over Eldridge’s land for the pipelines; Eldridge contended no writing existed, arguing the relationship was a license under Statute of Frauds.
- The district court held that the oral agreement was taken out of the Statute of Frauds by partial performance and that the plaintiffs had an easement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an oral easement agreement exists | Niles, Lester, Dragseth contend a 1981 oral agreement granted a 1/4 interest and an easement. | Eldridge argues no writing and no clear easement; the relationship is a license absent a valid oral easement. | The district court did not err; an oral easement existed and was enforceable via partial performance. |
| Whether partial performance removed the agreement from the Statute of Frauds | Partial performance by payment, possession, and improvements shows the contract’s terms. | Partial performance alone cannot prove an easement or remove Statute of Frauds without unmistakable intent. | Not clearly erroneous to find partial performance took the promise out of the Statute of Frauds. |
| Whether the district court properly refused to amend to assert a statute of limitations defense | Eldridge sought to raise a six-year limitations defense under N.D.C.C. § 28-01-16(1). | Amendment would be futile; the action is for construction/relief under ch. 32-23, not time-barred. | District court did not abuse discretion; amendment would be futile. |
| Whether the 1/4 ownership in the well and easement division is supported | Plaintiffs and Niles contributed to drilling costs and pipeline costs; ownership should be 1/4 each. | No proper argument in brief; issue not properly presented for review. | District court’s finding of 1/4 interests and easement is not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fladeland v. Gudbranson, 681 N.W.2d 431 (ND 2004) (partial performance can take an oral agreement out of the Statute of Frauds)
- Parceluk v. Knudtson, 139 N.W.2d 864 (ND 1966) (partial performance tests for land contract claims)
- Johnson Farms v. McEnroe, 568 N.W.2d 920 (ND 1997) (three acts of partial performance; consistency with contract)
- Riverwood Commercial Park, LLC v. Standard Oil Co., Inc., 698 N.W.2d 478 (ND 2005) (easement concept and land-use rights)
- Riverwood Commercial Park, LLC v. Standard Oil Co., Inc., 797 N.W.2d 770 (ND 2011) (easement/appurtenance and land-use considerations reaffirmed)