Kost v. Kraft, 795 N.W.2d 712

Kraft and Kost formerly operated Kost and Kraft Harvesting and ceased that partnership in 2003, but continued to share equipment and work in 2003–2004.
Kost sued Kraft in 2008 to dissolve the partnership and settle proceeds from equipment sales and alleged Kraft conversion of a planter.
Kraft counterclaimed for about $150,000 under an alleged oral lease of Kraft’s equipment for 2003–2004 and $10,000 for 2005 custom work by Kraft for Kost.
The district court granted summary judgment: the oral lease and the 2005 work were not enforceable under the statute of frauds and the counterclaims were not disclosed in Kraft’s bankruptcy.
A jury found Kraft had not converted a planter and allocated proceeds from Kost’s 2007 equipment auction between the parties.
Kraft appeals, arguing genuine issues exist about the statute of frauds applicability to an oral lease and that his bankruptcy proceeding does not bar his counterclaims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an alleged oral lease of equipment is enforceable despite the statute of frauds.	Kraft contends part performance shows the lease existed.	Kost argues leases require writing; part performance must clearly indicate the contract.	Disputed issues of material fact prevent summary judgment on enforceability.
Whether the 'received and accepted' doctrine applies to a lease under the North Dakota UCC and removes the contract from the statute of frauds.	Kraft relies on Hofmann-like reasoning to treat oral lease as enforceable.	Kost urges traditional lease-SOF approach; Buettner limits reliance on part performance.	There are disputed issues of material fact; district court erred in granting summary judgment.
Whether Kraft’s counterclaims are barred by bankruptcy mechanisms or estoppel.	Kraft argues assignment of estate claims and trustee approval allow pursuit in this action.	Kost asserts res judicata/equitable/judicial estoppel due to failure to disclose in bankruptcy.	Not precluded as a matter of law; Littlefield is not controlling on these facts; remand for fact-finding.

Buettner v. Nostdahl, 204 N.W.2d 187 (N.D. 1973) (part performance must clearly indicate existence of the oral contract)
Hofmann v. Stoller, 320 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 1982) (receiving and accepting goods allows enforcing oral sales; part performance evidence governed by clear/convincing standard in earlier Buettner)
Littlefield v. Union State Bank, 500 N.W.2d 881 (N.D. 1993) (bankruptcy-related res judicata/equitable estoppel for undisclosed claims)
Bragg v. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co. LP, 2009 ND 33 (N.D. 2009) (summary-judgment standard; de novo review; view evidence in light favorable to non-movant)
Erickson v. Brown, 747 N.W.2d 34 (N.D. 2008) (standard of review for summary judgment in ND; de novo review)
Amerada Hess Corp. v. State ex rel. Tax Comm’r, 704 N.W.2d 8 (N.D. 2005) (statutory interpretation guiding sovereign and tax matters)