Motschman v. Bridgepoint Mineral Acquisition Fund, LLC
795 N.W.2d 327
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Bridgepoint offered to buy Motsehman’s Dunn County mineral rights for $600 per acre and provided deeds and a sight draft.
- Motsehman signed the mineral deeds and Bridgepoint paid the full purchase price after recording the deed.
- Motsehman later claimed he intended only to lease, not sell, his mineral rights, and sent a letter withdrawing prior documents.
- Bridgepoint replied that the documents clearly showed a sale and that a valid contract had been formed and recorded.
- Motsehman sued for a declaration that no valid contract existed or, alternatively, for rescission based on lack of consideration.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Bridgepoint, holding a valid contract existed and that there was no basis for rescission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the statute of frauds properly raised? | Motsehman argues the deed did not satisfy the statute of frauds because no price is stated. | Bridgepoint contends Motsehman waived the issue by not pleading it and that the writing sufficed. | Statute of frauds not properly raised; waived. |
| Does failure of consideration allow rescission? | Motsehman maintained consideration failed since he did not cash the check. | Bridgepoint argues tender of payment, though not cashed, did not void consideration and was acceptable. | No rescission; consideration not shown to have failed. |
| Is there a valid, enforceable contract despite the above? | Motsehman contends the deed did not satisfy contract formation. | Bridgepoint asserts the deed and related correspondence formed a complete contract. | Yes, there was a valid contract; district court affirmed summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baldus v. Mattern, 93 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 1958) (statute of frauds must be pleaded or waived)
- Kadrmas v. Kadrmas, 264 N.W.2d 892 (N.D. 1978) (failure to plead or raise issues during summary judgment)
- Ellingson v. Knudson, 498 N.W.2d 814 (N.D.1993) (motion for reconsideration improper for shifting grounds)
- Dvorak v. Dvorak, 635 N.W.2d 135 (N.D.2001) (reconsideration standards; abuse of discretion)
- Ugland v. Farmers’ & Merchants’ State Bank, 137 N.W. 572 (N.D.1912) (tender of payment sufficient unless objected timely)
- Langer v. Pender, 764 N.W.2d 159 (N.D.2009) (abuse of discretion standard for reconsideration decisions)