Motter v. Traill Rural Water District
2017 ND 267
| N.D. | 2017Background
- In 2006 Melba Motter (through a conservator) leased ~40 acres to Traill Rural Water District (TRWD) for 99 years at $250/acre; two nearly identical leases were executed after negotiation by experienced attorneys. TRWD paid a $1,000 option payment in 2006; well development began in 2010 and wells occupy about 2 acres.
- Daniel and Marlene Motter acquired title to the land (and the leases) in January 2011. Dispute arose over whether rent was owed on all 40 acres or only the well sites.
- TRWD initially proposed renegotiation and later paid different amounts; Motters claimed substantial back rent (later adjusted by the court to $51,500 for 2011–2015). Parties litigated contract interpretation and sought reformation.
- At the first bench trial (Dec. 2015) the court found clear and convincing evidence of mutual mistake and reformed the leases (finding past rent due on all 40 acres for 2011–2013, then per-well thereafter). That reformation theory was advanced in TRWD’s post-trial brief.
- Motters moved for a new trial on the ground of surprise; the district court granted a new trial under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(b)(3). At the second trial (2016) the court reversed its earlier reformation finding, concluded the leases unambiguously required $250/acre, and entered judgment for $51,500 plus prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Motter's Argument | TRWD's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a new trial | Motters argued they were surprised by TRWD’s reformation theory raised post-trial and thus entitled to a new trial | TRWD argued Motters should have sought continuance or supplemented the record and the court abused discretion in granting a new trial | No abuse of discretion: new trial permissible where reformation theory surfaced post-trial and caused surprise |
| Whether the leases should be reformed for mutual mistake | Motters argued the written leases reflected parties’ intent for per-acre payment and opposed reformation | TRWD argued mutual mistake existed and leases should be reformed to a per-well payment (they never intended to lease all 40 acres) | Reformation denied: TRWD failed to prove mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence |
| Proper interpretation of the lease language | Motters maintained language is clear and unambiguous: $250 per acre per year | TRWD urged extrinsic evidence and negotiations support a per-well interpretation | Court construed contract to reflect mutual intent at formation and enforced the per-acre payment as written |
| Standard of review for factual findings and new-trial rulings on appeal | Motters relied on district court’s discretion and factual findings after second trial | TRWD asked appellate deference but urged reversal based on alleged misweighing of witnesses | Appellate court affirmed: factual findings not clearly erroneous; grant of new trial within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Lange v. Cusey, 379 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 1985) (standard that granting a new trial is within trial court discretion)
- Okken v. Okken, 325 N.W.2d 264 (N.D. 1982) (stronger showing required to reverse grant of new trial than to reverse denial)
- Ceartin v. Ochs, 516 N.W.2d 651 (N.D. 1994) (orders granting new trials are rarely reversed)
- Hamre v. Senger, 79 N.W.2d 41 (N.D. 1956) (continuance vs. new trial when claiming surprise at trial)
- Bohn v. Eichhorst, 181 N.W.2d 771 (N.D. 1970) (surprise in post-trial developments can justify new trial)
- Ell v. Ell, 295 N.W.2d 143 (N.D. 1980) (reformation requires certainty of error; high burden)
- Johnson v. Hovland, 795 N.W.2d 294 (N.D. 2011) (party seeking reformation must show clear and convincing evidence)
- Fredericks v. Fredericks, 888 N.W.2d 177 (N.D. 2016) (deeds and contracts construed to effect mutual intent; reformation standards)