Larson v. Norheim
2013 ND 60
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Larsons are surface owners of Divide County land; Thelma Norheim recorded 53.333 net mineral acres under their property in 1985.
- Thelma Norheim died in 1992; Hans Norheim, her husband, was sole heir and died in 1998; probate records for either Norheim never appeared until 2011.
- In June 2006, Larsons published a Notice of Lapse alleging prolonged mineral inactivity; they could not locate probate or heirs through searches.
- On June 27, 2007, Norheim heirs recorded a statement of claim listing specific heirs and asserting ownership through those heirs.
- Larsons sued to quiet title; the district court held the Larsons failed to provide reasonable notice to current owners and that the Norheim heirs preserved the minerals, so abandonment did not occur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a reasonable inquiry was required to identify current mineral owners | Larsons claim to give notice to owner of record suffices | Norheim heirs and court require a reasonable inquiry to locate current owners | Not clearly err to require reasonable inquiry; however, heirs preserved minerals. |
| Whether the Norheim heirs' statement of claim sufficed to preserve minerals | Statement lacked proper execution by Hans Norheim’s heirs | Inge and Olav Oyen acted as representatives; signature sufficed | Statement of claim preserved the mineral interests; not abandoned. |
| Whether an owner’s representative may record a statement of claim | Only the owner or named heirs may record | Owner’s representative may record under ch. 38-18.1-04 | Agency established; writing not required to record by representative. |
| Whether the minerals were abandoned under the 2004 version of ch. 38-18.1 | Abandoned on first publication if no timely claim | Timely claim within 60 days preserved interest | Not abandoned; timely claim preserved Norheim heirs’ interests. |
| Whether the 2004 version of ch. 38-18.1 applied (non-retroactive) | 2004 version applies; provisions allow preservation by timely claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Taliaferro, 793 N.W.2d 804 (2011 ND 34) (statutory interpretation and timing of claims)
- Bragg v. Burlington Res. Oil and Gas Co. LP, 763 N.W.2d 481 (2009 ND 33) (statutory interpretation; abandonment context)
- Sorenson v. Felton, 793 N.W.2d 799 (2011 ND 33) (statutory framework for mineral abandonment)
- Taliaferro, 2011 ND 34 (2011 ND 34) (clarifies abandonment timing and vesting principles)
- Stutsman County v. State Historical Soc’y, 371 N.W.2d 321 (ND 1985) (statutory construction approach and practical interpretation)