Johnson v. Finkle
2013 ND 149
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Axel and Norma Anderson owned the listed Mountrail County land and sold 1/2 of the minerals in 1949.
- In 1957 the Andersons entered a contract for deed with Henry Johnson; the contract reserved a 1/4 mineral interest to the Andersons.
- In 1962 the Andersons executed a warranty deed to Henry Johnson that again purported to reserve a 1/4 mineral interest while conveying the described property.
- The Andersons did not own 100% of the minerals at the time of the warranty deed (they only owned 1/2).)
- The Johnson heirs sued to quiet title to 1/2 of the mineral interests; Finkle (an Anderson heir) counterclaimed to quiet title to an undivided 1/4 and sought reformation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Johnsons applying the Duhig rule; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the reservation in the 1962 warranty deed is effective when grantor lacks sufficient minerals | Finkle: Duhig shouldn't apply because Henry Johnson had an outstanding interest via the 1957 contract for deed (so Gilbertson controls) and she owns 1/4 of the minerals | Johnsons: Warranty deed conveyed the minerals; Andersons only owned 1/2, so overconveyance triggers Duhig and reservation fails | Held: Duhig applies; the grant is satisfied first and Andersons reserved no mineral interest; title quieted to Johnsons |
| Whether the 1957 contract for deed or later delay-rental stipulation gave Johnson a preexisting legal mineral interest preventing Duhig | Finkle: Contract/delay-rental created an outstanding interest in Johnson before the 1962 deed | Johnsons: Contract for deed gave only equitable title; legal title did not vest until warranty deed; constructive notice is insufficient to avoid Duhig | Held: Contract for deed gave only equitable title; Gilbertson is limited to grantees with prior legal title; Duhig remains controlling |
| Whether reformation of the deeds is warranted | Finkle: Deeds should be reformed to reflect her reserved interest | Johnsons: No basis for reformation; deed language is unambiguous and overconveyance must be resolved under Duhig | Held: Reformation denied; deed unambiguous and Duhig applied |
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed for untimely brief | Johnsons: Brief was late; seek summary affirmance | Finkle: requested extension | Held: Extension was granted; brief not untimely, appeal proceeds |
Key Cases Cited
- Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co., 144 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. 1940) (overconveyance rule: grant satisfied before reservation; grantor bears risk of title loss)
- Gilbertson v. Charlson, 301 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 1981) (limited exception to Duhig where grantee owned an outstanding mineral interest prior to conveyance)
- Gawryluk v. Poynter, 654 N.W.2d 400 (N.D. 2002) (deed construction follows contract principles; discusses Duhig application)
- Sibert v. Kubas, 357 N.W.2d 495 (N.D. 1984) (limits Gilbertson to its factual context; general application of Duhig)
- Miller v. Kloeckner, 600 N.W.2d 881 (N.D. 1999) (warranty deed conveying described land with a reservation conveys surface and the reserved share of minerals according to ownership; supports Duhig application)