878 N.W.2d 65
N.D.2016Background
- Lumleys were long-time tenant farmers on Kapusta’s Mountrail County property.
- Discussions in 2012 contemplated purchase of all or part of the property.
- Lumleys sent $525,827, deeds to be executed, and a note stating contract contingent on documents signed the same day.
- Kapusta endorsed and deposited the cashier’s check and signed the deeds but did not return executed deeds.
- No appraisal was performed; contingencies in the Lumleys’ note were not followed; Kapusta returned the funds.
- District Court dismissed holding no enforceable oral contract, only an offer, not an agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was an enforceable oral contract to convey the property | Lumleys claim an agreed price and terms formed a valid contract | No meeting of the minds on price; actions amounted to an offer and rejection | No enforceable oral contract; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Linderkamp v. Hoffman, 1997 ND 64 (ND 1997) (contract must fix price for enforceability of real property sale)
- Kost v. Kraft, 2011 ND 69 (ND 2011) (clear and unequivocal evidence required; mere preponderance insufficient)
- Mandan-Bismarck Livestock Auction v. Kist, 84 N.W.2d 297 (ND 1957) (price must be fixed or fixable with certainty)
- Broten v. Broten, 2015 ND 127, 863 N.W.2d 902 (ND 2015) (fact-finding not clearly erroneous; credibility given deference)
- RRMC Constr., Inc. v. Barth, 2010 ND 60, 780 N.W.2d 656 (ND 2010) (existence/terms of oral contract are questions of fact)
- Linderkamp v. Hoffman, 1997 ND 64, 562 N.W.2d 734 (ND 1997) (contract must fix price to be enforceable)