947 N.W.2d 901
N.D.2020Background
- Kvande owns Lot 3, Block 1, School Addition, Wheelock, ND. In 2012 Thorson moved a building onto Kvande’s lot after having a concrete foundation poured there; utilities were connected and Thorson lived in the building.
- The parties had multiple discussions but no written agreement; they disputed whether any oral agreement covered permanent occupancy or only temporary storage.
- Kvande demanded Thorson leave in 2015 or 2016 and later attempted eviction; in September 2017 Kvande sued seeking removal or the cost of removal and restoration.
- Thorson counterclaimed (including laches, estoppel, statute of frauds, waiver, failure of consideration) and argued he had an enforceable agreement or was entitled to relief under equitable/pronissory estoppel.
- The district court found no enforceable oral contract, rejected laches and equitable/promissory estoppel, and ordered Thorson to remove or demolish the building and foundation and restore the property within 120 days (with title to the building to vest in Kvande if not removed).
- Thorson appealed the denial of laches/estoppel and sought a reset of the 120‑day removal deadline; the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and declined to reset the deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Kvande's Argument | Thorson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches bars Kvande’s removal claim | No — delay caused no prejudice; Thorson can be restored or compensated | Yes — Kvande delayed ~4 years and Thorson spent substantial sums and improved the building | Laches not established: Thorson failed to prove prejudice or inability to be restored; laches cannot divest an owner of property by inaction |
| Whether equitable estoppel or promissory estoppel creates an enforceable right to remain/permanent conveyance | No — no enforceable agreement or essential terms (price, rent, taxes) were agreed | Yes — parties agreed Thorson could permanently live on/purchase the property | Estoppel doctrines do not apply: no clear, definite promise on essential terms and equitable estoppel cannot create an enforceable contract |
| Whether the Supreme Court should reset the district court’s 120‑day removal deadline | Enforce judgment as entered | Request to reset deadline pending appeal | Request denied; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Black Stone Minerals Co., L.P. v. Brokaw, 893 N.W.2d 498 (N.D. 2017) (discussing laches as an equitable defense)
- Stenehjem ex rel. State v. Nat’l Audubon Soc’y, Inc., 844 N.W.2d 892 (N.D. 2014) (defines laches and prejudice requirement)
- Johnson v. State, 714 N.W.2d 832 (N.D. 2006) (laches principles)
- Bakken v. Duchscher, 827 N.W.2d 17 (N.D. 2013) (awareness and failure to assert rights for laches)
- Siana Oil & Gas Co., L.L.C. v. Dublin Co., 915 N.W.2d 134 (N.D. 2018) (laches generally a question of fact)
- Strom v. Giske, 68 N.W.2d 838 (N.D. 1955) (laches not sustained when party can be restored to former status)
- Valentina Williston, LLC v. Gadeco, LLC, 878 N.W.2d 397 (N.D. 2016) (promissory estoppel requires clear, definite, unambiguous essential terms)
- Hayden v. Medcenter One, Inc., 828 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 2013) (equitable estoppel cannot by itself create an enforceable agreement)
- Lohse v. Atl. Richfield Co., 389 N.W.2d 352 (N.D. 1986) (purpose of equitable estoppel is to preserve, not create, rights)