Matter of M.D.
2012 ND 261
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Wendell Lund sues Betty and Orville Lund for damages and property transfer based on an alleged 1985 implied contract for labor and taxes on real property.
- In 1991, Orville and Betty signed a deed purporting to convey their interest to Orville and Wendell; divorce in 2010 later deemed the deed invalid for Betty's homestead rights.
- The district court included the entire property value in the marital estate, awarding it to Orville; Lund v. Lund, 2011 ND 53, 795 N.W.2d 318, affirmed on appeal.
- Betty Lund moved to Arizona in 2010; she has since held an Arizona driver’s license, vehicle registration, and voter registration there.
- In 2011, Wendell filed suit; service on Betty was by publication after she could not be located; she moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The district court dismissed Lund’s claims against Betty for lack of personal jurisdiction; Lund appeals, and the supreme court reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Betty under Rule 4(b)(2). | Lund contends Betty transacted business in ND and had property interests in state supporting jurisdiction. | Betty argues she is not a North Dakota resident and lacks enumerated contacts; no long-arm basis. | Yes; jurisdiction exists under Rule 4(b)(2) despite Betty's Arizona residence. |
| Whether Betty's past contacts in North Dakota suffice for long-arm jurisdiction. | Betty engaged in the contract and deed related activities in ND. | Contacts must be current; she moved to Arizona and no ongoing ND activities. | Past conduct within ND can support jurisdiction; contacts need not be current. |
| Whether the transactional long-arm provisions apply to a breach-of-implied-contract claim. | Rule 4(b)(2) covers the defendant’s activities, not the litigation theory. | The action is based on implied contract; long-arm provisions do not apply to such claims. | Jurisdiction applies based on Betty's ND activities; theory of contract does not control. |
| Whether Betty's former ND residence status precludes jurisdiction. | Former ND resident can be subject to jurisdiction for ND-based transactions. | Nonresidents should not be immune if they left the state. | Former residents may be subject to ND jurisdiction for activities engaged in while resident. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bolinske v. Herd, 2004 ND 217 (ND 2004) (broad interpretation of transacting business under Rule 4(b)(2))
- Hansen v. Scott, 2002 ND 101 (ND 2002) (expansive long-arm reach under Rule 4(b)(2))
- Ensign v. Bank of Baker, 2004 ND 56 (ND 2004) (case-by-case analysis of personal jurisdiction; prima facie showing)
- Quackenbush, 434 N.W.2d 567 (ND 1989) (use of credit cards while ND resident supports jurisdiction)
- Auction Effertz, Ltd. v. Schecher, 2000 ND 109 (ND 2000) (expansive interpretation of transacting business in state)
- Catlin v. Catlin, 494 N.W.2d 581 (ND 1992) (contacts may arise from past conduct; nonresident may be subject to suit)
- Wagner v. Miskin, 2003 ND 69 (ND 2003) (recognizes jurisdiction over former residents for activities in ND)